• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

most dangerous dog breeds, least dangerous dog breeds, and why

What if we genetically engineered a bunch of giant, flying dogs to carry cargo around the world? If we combine them with plant DNA so that they get their energy from photosynthesis, we wouldn't even need to feed them.

Oh, crap, imagine what a dog large enough to fly cargo can knock over with its tail!
And speaking of crap.... :eek:

Did you have to remind me of that dog from long ago?!?! Big (100#) friendly thing with a huge rope-like tail that would go a mile a minute any time it saw a friendly face and the dog was apparently totally indifferent to whatever it slammed into.
 
Billions would die of starvation because our food distribution world wide absolutely requires roads. Just imagine New Orleans during Katrina. Except now instead of one stranded city surrounded by a well functioning society able to deliver them supplies every community worldwide has to scrounge for food. The historical and archaeological records show less than one billion people can survive on earth without oil and modern infrastructure. While this thought experiment is far removed from the topic of dogs its truly a no-brainer that billions would die.

What if we genetically engineered a bunch of giant, flying dogs to carry cargo around the world? If we combine them with plant DNA so that they get their energy from photosynthesis, we wouldn't even need to feed them.

The documentary The Wizard of Oz shows us that flying monkeys would be a better solution, although they'll change their allegiance as soon as their owner dies in an industrial accident.
 
What if we genetically engineered a bunch of giant, flying dogs to carry cargo around the world? If we combine them with plant DNA so that they get their energy from photosynthesis, we wouldn't even need to feed them.

The documentary The Wizard of Oz shows us that flying monkeys would be a better solution, although they'll change their allegiance as soon as their owner dies in an industrial accident.

Genetic manipulation can only get you so far and monkeys are still monkeys. If you tell a dog to take a package to Phoenix, that package gets to Phoenix without any delay. If you tell a monkey to do it, he just gets bored and wanders off halfway there. The distribution system simply isn't maintainable with them.
 
Genetic manipulation can only get you so far and monkeys are still monkeys. If you tell a dog to take a package to Phoenix, that package gets to Phoenix without any delay. If you tell a monkey to do it, he just gets bored and wanders off halfway there. The distribution system simply isn't maintainable with them.

Yes but does't the dog tend to bring the package straight back to the owner again ? And then they go through the cycle several more times.
 
The documentary The Wizard of Oz shows us that flying monkeys would be a better solution, although they'll change their allegiance as soon as their owner dies in an industrial accident.

Genetic manipulation can only get you so far and monkeys are still monkeys. If you tell a dog to take a package to Phoenix, that package gets to Phoenix without any delay. If you tell a monkey to do it, he just gets bored and wanders off halfway there. The distribution system simply isn't maintainable with them.

But if you need a Kansan farmgirl kidnapped, the monkeys have a proven track record.
 
Trying to return to the OP, the statistics in the OP are terribly flawed:
With respect to bites, no one breed causes most of them.[3] A 2015 literature review concluded that "breed is a poor sole predictor of dog bites".[9] In the United States pit bull-type are the most frequently identified breeds in cases of severe bites with Rottweiler dogs also being common.[3][9] This is partly attributed to their size and the fact that they are more frequently owned by people involved in crime.[9]

When dogs are near humans with whom they are familiar, they normally become less aggressive. However, it should not be assumed that because a dog has been with humans, it will not attack anybody – even a family member. Caution needs to be taken when approaching new dogs for the first time.[10]

A study based on recent data from 2000–2009, published in 2013, compared media accounts with reports available from animal control officials, determined that, of their sample of 256 dog bite related fatalities, breed could only be validly determined in 45 cases, and the attacks in these 45 cases were dispersed among 20 different breeds and 2 known mixes. For a further set of 401 dogs in media accounts of dog bite related fatality, reported breed differed between different media accounts of the same attack 31% of the time, factoring in animal control accounts produced disagreement on breed for 40% of attacks.[11]

A 2000 study by the US by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports of 327 people killed by dogs "pit bull terrier" or mixes thereof were reportedly involved in 76 cases. The breed with the next-highest number of attributed fatalities was the Rottweiler and mixes thereof, with 44 fatalities.[2]
( Dog_bite).
I have heard the criticisms, but it is among the most comprehensive data and it accords with the other surveys. The alternative seemingly preferred by the defenders of dangerous breeds is no dog bite data at all but breed temperament rankings. Choose the data that agrees with you regardless of its relevance.
 
Trying to return to the OP, the statistics in the OP are terribly flawed:
( Dog_bite).
I have heard the criticisms, but it is among the most comprehensive data and it accords with the other surveys. The alternative seemingly preferred by the defenders of dangerous breeds is no dog bite data at all but breed temperament rankings.
The point of that snippet is that it appears to be neither comprehensive nor in accord with other surveys. Regardless of one's views on the matter, accurate data is always preferred over inaccurate and misleading data. In particularly troubling aspect of the OP "data' is that it has no sense of proportion. More popular dog breeds may have more recorded bites because they are simply many more of them than rarer breeds.
Choose the data that agrees with you regardless of its relevance.
That does describe the OP data perfectly.
 
I have heard the criticisms, but it is among the most comprehensive data and it accords with the other surveys. The alternative seemingly preferred by the defenders of dangerous breeds is no dog bite data at all but breed temperament rankings.
The point of that snippet is that it appears to be neither comprehensive nor in accord with other surveys. Regardless of one's views on the matter, accurate data is always preferred over inaccurate and misleading data. In particularly troubling aspect of the OP "data' is that it has no sense of proportion. More popular dog breeds may have more recorded bites because they are simply many more of them than rarer breeds.
Choose the data that agrees with you regardless of its relevance.
That does describe the OP data perfectly.
In the OP, my analysis corrected for the differing popularity of breeds. That is how Chows are at the top and not pit bulls.
 
Back
Top Bottom