I heard that among surgeons there are a lot who have a personality disorder like narcissism or they are straight up sociopaths. Because of the prestige and power that comes with the job. Some feel like they are some sort of god because they have so much control over someone’s life when a patient lies on the table.
Not a surprise to me that this shit happens in the hospital.
I think there’s also something to the idea that it takes someone who is a little…“off” for them to be able to cut other people open for their job. You have to be able to dehumanize them to a certain extent.
I worked in a hospital for a few years, and the folks working in the ORs were definitely the most interesting and often most intimidating crowd, and you did NOT fuck with the surgeons, they were the kings and queens of the floor.
The training pretty much filters neurotypicals. Most well-adjusted people won’t sacrifice their entire life for a career and don’t suffer from a savior complex that compels them to save lives. I’m certainly not advocating that surgery is unnecessary or that surgeons are bad people by default, but it takes a fair level of narcissism to put yourself in that position IMO
That, or the opposite. The only kind of good person I can see doing surgery is someone who is otherwise well-adjusted but has experienced a tragedy in childhood that led to a guilt complex.
I hate to say it but it’s horrible with psychiatry too. There are too many people who take jobs they don’t want in psychiatry here because it pays well but the government health care system assigns your posting. Calling Dr. Richard McGee of Castlegar, BC, you’re a fucking bastard who has ruined lives and broken the hypocratic oath! Oh, and don’t even get me started on Ponokah, Alberta’s Centennial Hospital’s Psyche Ward, that place is guilty of unlawful confinent.
The National Rifle Association will offer a very well cited claim that strict gun laws increase violent crime. The Violence Policy Center will offer a very well cited claim that the opposite is true. Reality is likely more nuanced.
The hole in dog breed bite statistics is usually accurate identification of the breed.
Maybe I’m missing something, what does this advocacy group stand to benefit from banning pitbulls? The NRA is backed by weapons manufacturers. This seems to be people who actually see a problem and are taking actions to help protect people.
People often hold strong beliefs that are not related to personal gain nor particularly rational. I don’t think their intent is nefarious, but I think it’s likely mistaken.
For me to think breed specific legislation is a good idea, I’d probably need three things:
Statistics about serious injuries to people supported by reliable breed identification. Asking a victim or police officer what breed of dog caused the injury is insufficient.
At least some some supporting evidence that the breed is inherently more dangerous than other breeds of the same size instead of simply being popular with people who train their dogs to be aggressive.
Legislation focused on breeding bans, neutering mandates, and a mix of fence/muzzle requirements and temperament testing rather than confiscation or euthanasia individual dogs that have not shown signs of aggression.
About 15 years ago I volunteered with a pitbull rescue, then did a bunch of research on pitbull attacks in grad school. The problem then was that most statistics like this were unreliable once you saw what they labeled a pitbull. In most cases it was just any “mutt” was considered a pitbull. I don’t know if things have changed, never really looked into it since then, but I’m still a bit wary of stats like this without knowing their data is accurate.
My little dog doesn’t have an ounce of pitbull in her. Her mom was a border collie/lab mix, and the Father was the Neighbor’s boston terrier/english pointer mix. The only thing remotely pitbull like about her is her underbite. That said, I’ve lost count of the times somebody at the dog park, usually someone with a little ankle biter dog of the teacup persuasion, has gotten uppity about me having a “pitbull” off leash. People are dumb.
It doesn’t help that a lot of strays/rescues have a good chunk of pit bull blood in them.
Both of my dogs are rescues from programs in the southern US. One of them certainly seems to have some pit in him…beautiful brindle coat, block head, incredibly strong jaw, stocky-muscular build. He’s dumb as a bag of rocks but incredibly loyal and affectionate. Because of the stigma around pits, though, I’m afraid to get him DNA tested.
Most rational people would, but it was an indicator that people who report dog bites did not know the difference.
And I’m not sure what my school had to do with it. At that time I was sourcing data from external sources, using data reported on police reports or by other organizations. Someone else commenting referenced the breed specific legislation advocacy group that was a source for some of that data.
My comment might not have been clear, I was criticising the data I was finding.
The studies I’ve seen that people cite to say “you can’t identify a breed by looking at it” usually are playing a semantic game - and what often is not emphasized is that the same research shows that when people identify a dog as a “pit bull,” that those people are quite accurate in identifying–by morphology alone–the presence of genetics from one of the several aggressive breeds people call “pit bulls.” And that the morphology is positively correlated with higher aggression.
Actually it’s more likely a pitt is labeled incorrectly like a lab etc to get them adopted to people too ignorant to know better. So that’s gonna invalidate that statement.
But I suspect that it’s mostly due to a combination of breed and neglect/non-training. The kind of people who want a pit bull in particular, and the kind of people who just chain up their dog outside and never train or socialize it, probably have significant overlap.
Did you know that all of the breeds that are identified by the name “pit bull” rate high in aggression? And that the same studies that pitbull afficianados cite for “you can’t tell a breed by appearance” also support the idea that when people call a dog a “pit bull” based on morphology alone, that the dog stands a very high chance of having decended from one of the several breeds identified as a pit bull?
Not in the study i reaf. They lined pure American pitbull and some pitbull mutts and dogs with no pitbull. They only to reliably guees who was the pitbull, even counting the mutt as pb, was if the dog was showing teeth.
Wrong. You’re misrepresenting the stats. You’re leaving out the fact that in over half of all dog bites the breed is unknown.
Also, in studies where vet personnel are asked to visually identify the breed of dog, they are wrong two out of three times. So if vet personnel can’t even do it, dog bite victims, police reports, and hospital reports, from where these statistics on dog bites are obtained, are definitely not getting right.
The truth is that we have absolutely zero legitimate idea what dogs are causing injuries. Even if the numbers on pitbulls were accurate, the breed is unreported in more than half of cases, which statistically speaking means there could be another breed of dog that you’ve never even heard of that’s responsible for more than half of all bites.
The other issue for me is the inherent racism by those who advocate for these policies. In every conversation, it eventually devolves to the proponent of breed bans doing one of two things: admitting that they are targeting certain types of people, not breeds, and arguments that rely on false assertions of history, genetic and behavioral science, that are identical to those put forth by eugenicists. The easy example is the false assertions that pitbulls were “bred for fighting.”
They were bred for hunting and loyalty to their families and children. The guy to originally bred them wrote several books which you can read on Google Books and discusses at length their loyalty to people and kids as a primary characteristics, moreso than any violence. It was their strength and determination that made them useful for hunting, not aggression.
They were used only for dog fighting decades after the big game hunting they were bred to do was banned, and even then, dogs that showed aggression to humans were banned from the “sport” if not outright euthanized.
The studies that you would cite to support your “you can’t tell a breed by its look” also tend to show that people are quite accurate at identifying that one of the many breeds that are called pit bulls are present in a particular dog. in other words, they can’t accurately say “this is a pure bred Staffordshire Terrier” but they can say, “this is a pit bull” and they’re correct, unless you’re playing stupid semantic games.
That study seems to state a conclusion precisely the opposite of what the experimental results were. Based on a small sample set, there’s a high degree of match, far more accurate than random chance, between the observations and the genetic findings.
Of the 25 dogs identified as pit bull-type dogs by breed signature, 12 were identified by shelter staff as pit bull-type dogs at the time of admission to the shelter (prior to the study visit), including five labeled American Staffordshire terrier mix, four pit bull mix, two pit bull, and one American Staffordshire terrier. During the study, 20/25 dogs were identified by at least one of the four staff assessors as pit bull-type dogs, and five were not identified as pit bull-type dogs by any of the assessors. …
Of the 95 dogs (79%) that lacked breed signatures for pit bull heritage breeds, six (6%) were identified by shelter staff as pit bull-type dogs at the time of shelter admission, and 36 (38%) were identified as pit bull-type dogs by at least one shelter staff assessor at the time of the study visit
So, at intake, 18 dogs were identified as pit bulls but only 2/3rds were at least 12% pit bull.
During the study, 56 dogs were identified as being pit bulls, but only about 1/3rd were in fact at least 12% pit bull.
This is the classic ‘base rate fallacy’. The false positive rate isn’t that high, and the false negative rate isn’t that high either. But because the true positive rate is pretty low, the ratio of true positives to false positives is much worse than you’d intuitively think.
Tests for rare diseases and attempts to behaviorally profile terrorists at airports runs into the same problem. Sometimes, a 99.9% accurate test just moves you from searching for a needle on a farm to a needle in only a single haystack.
Pitbull isn’t a breed, it’s a colloquialism that is used as a catch-all for any breed with a certain look. They’re either American bullys, American pit bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, American bulldogs, or a mix of these breeds. If you aren’t collecting separate data for each of these breeds individually, then the best we can do is divide the total number of bites between those breeds by 5.
Dog breeds are defined separately for a reason, you can’t just lump them together, ban 5(6 if you include mixes) breeds of dog, then think the dog bite issue is solved. Assholes who buy dogs only to isolate and ignore and/or mistreat them, will just choose the next most aggressive breed, then treat them the same. Statistically, that will mean that German shepherds will be the next banned breed, as they routinely come up as the second most deadly specific breed of dog. Say goodbye to your GS.
you can’t just lump them together, ban 5(6 if you include mixes) breeds of dog, then think the dog bite issue is solved. Assholes … will just choose the next most aggressive breed
This is the same problem behind attempts to “solve” firearm violence through arbitrary bans and has strong parallels in ongoing knee-jerk reactions and other clout-chasing behavior in response to any events.
At the end of the day, we aren’t going to see any improvement in either until we assess the assholes part of the equation.
Lmao, it’s hilarious to see people post stuff like this in all seriousness.
Like, firearm bans do objectively work at reducing gun violence, and banning pitbulls would reduce the average severity and rate of dog bites.
They’re not root cause solutions but if your root cause solution is to just not have any more irresponsible assholes in the world then you might want to rethink your problem space.
Lmao, it’s hilarious to see people post stuff like this in all seriousness.
It really is.
You recognize the measures do nothing to address the actual root issues while sliding by the callouts of lack of data/fact behind your assertion even aside from the poor reasoning itself, all while trying to mount your own high horse.
You recognize the measures do nothing to address the actual root issues
I recognize that you’re the only country that regularly has mass shootings. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that you can address a problem without addressing the root cause when the root cause is infeasible to address (like people occasionally becoming unhinged).
Breeding dogs is already a largely narcissistic practice, we don’t need to allow the breeding of the most violent and dangerous ones.
I’d rather have a mass stabbing epidemic than what we’ve got.
Interestingly enough, when one addresses the root issues - the motivations and pressures behind the violence - you end up with neither mass shootings nor mass stabbings… which is the point.
I’d rather not only care that violence is done by X implement - I’d rather we do something about the violence, categorically. Incidentally, this would have the side benefit of, say, improving lives.
Except that the root cause of gun violence is that the human brain is inherently fallible and didn’t evolve to own point and click murder devices.
You give everyone a powerful killing tool and surprise surprise you get more mass killings.
The UK has issues with knife crime, but it’s absurd to suggest that they’re remotely comparable to America’s issues with gun crime or that the UK wouldn’t be worse off if every kid with a knife was strapped dup instead.
“Gun violence is because human brain no get clicky killy” might be one of the most absurd assertions I’ve seen. I’m looking forward to whatever semblance of support you can scrounge up for that assertion.
You give everyone a powerful killing tool and surprise surprise you get more mass killings.
By your reasoning, the rate of mass shootings should have correlated strongly with the saturation of firearms. Why hasn’t it?
“People increasingly experience desperate extremes and surprise surprise you get more desperate actions” is both a more reasonable, rational fit and actually tied to reality.
The UK has issues with knife crime, but it’s absurd to suggest that they’re remotely comparable to America’s issues with gun crime or that the UK wouldn’t be worse off if every kid with a knife was strapped dup instead.
It’s similarly absurd to pretend that the only relevant difference between the United States and pick a country is the presence of firearms.
“Gun violence is because human brain no get clicky killy” might be one of the most absurd assertions I’ve seen. I’m looking forward to whatever semblance of support you can scrounge up for that assertion.
The fact that suicide rates track with gun ownership? You really can’t think through how our brains are evolved to handle being able to kill people slowly with our bare hands, but not being able to kill people at the click of a button from a distance?
Do you understand how evolution works? Do you understand how it’s effortless to kill something with a gun accidentally at a distance but not to strangle someone? Are you capable of following a logical train of thought? Based on your insistence that America being the only country with weekly mass shootings having nothing to do with America being the only country with free access to firearms, my assumption is no, but honestly this point should not be a struggle. Imagine arming everyone with nukes and see whether or not we end up with nuclear scale catastrophes, now just scale the power levels down a bit. This really should not be hard to think through.
By your reasoning, the rate of mass shootings should have correlated strongly with the saturation of firearms. Why hasn’t it?
Lmao, way to weasel in the word strongly to try and pretend like they don’t track! What about the suicide rate? Rate of domestic homicide? Oh what they all track with rates of gun ownership? Maybe our brains aren’t great at handling that kind of power so casually … oh no, actually it MUST be because America is the only country that struggles with poverty and inequality, that totally must be it, can’t possibly be a flaw with a 200 year old document written by a bunch of slave owners.
The fact that suicide rates track with gun ownership?
“Track with”? Did you mean poorly correlate with?
You really can’t think through how our brains are evolved to handle being able to kill people slowly with our bare hands, but not being able to kill people at the click of a button from a distance?
I’m still waiting for support for the first absurd assertion and you’ve gone and added another.
Do you understand how evolution works? Do you understand how it’s effortless to kill something with a gun accidentally at a distance but not to strangle someone? Are you capable of following a logical train of thought? Based on your insistence that America being the only country with weekly mass shootings having nothing to do with America being the only country with free access to firearms, my assumption is no, but honestly this point should not be a struggle. Imagine arming everyone with nukes and see whether or not we end up with nuclear scale catastrophes, now just scale the power levels down a bit. This really should not be hard to think through.
Oh, my - and now you’ve got to support the absurd notion that humanity only evolved for violence by hands despite our use of tools generally being considered a unique and crucial evolutionary advantage. It’s ironic that your criticize understanding while demonstrating your own shortcomings.
Lmao, way to weasel in the word strongly to try and pretend like they don’t track! What about the suicide rate? Rate of domestic homicide? Oh what they all track with rates of gun ownership? Maybe our brains aren’t great at handling that kind of power so casually … oh no, actually it MUST be because America is the only country that struggles with poverty and inequality, that totally must be it, can’t possibly be a flaw with a 200 year old document written by a bunch of slave owners.
I’m not sure how a direct criticism of your argument’s flaws is somehow weaseling. I’m getting the impression you don’t understand what correlation even is, let alone whether or not it serves to prove causation.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that you can address a problem without addressing the root cause
Not really, no. You can take action to address symptoms… but those don’t do anything about the problem. For example, you can take myriad pain relievers to feel less shitty about a cold - addressing the symptoms - but the problem is still there, unaddressed.
Firearm violence is no different. Pitbulls are no different.
Breeding dogs is already a largely narcissistic practice, we don’t need to allow the breeding of the most violent and dangerous ones.
First, let’s highlight the obvious issue - Human breeding is largely a narcissistic practice, we don’t need to allow the breeding of the least intelligent ones.
Second, your irrational fear of a thing does not justify restrictions on that thing.
Not really, no. You can take action to address symptoms… but those don’t do anything about the problem. For example, you can take myriad pain relievers to feel less shitty about a cold - addressing the symptoms - but the problem is still there, unaddressed
Yes, when the root problem is unaddressable, like in the case of a cold virus or say, HIV, we instead treat the symptoms as the next best option… so when the root problem of gun violence is 'people having moments of unhingedness" or the root cause of doog attacks is “people being bad dog owners” things that are just statistical realities of the human race that you’ll never be able to eliminate, then you treat the symptoms to make them less severe.
Again, this is why America is the only western country in the world where the number one cause of death for children is gun violence.
First, let’s highlight the obvious issue - Human breeding is largely a narcissistic practice, we don’t need to allow the breeding of the least intelligent ones.
Yes we do, read any of the past century of the history of eugenics and youll see the horrible outcomes that result when you try to prevent it.
Second, your irrational fear of a thing does not justify restrictions on that thing.
Again, you’re the only country where people are regularly mass murdered. It is absolutely insane how fucking deluded you are. You can see literally orders of magnitude more western people looking at your children getting slaughtered for no reason but go ‘nope, Merica always the best, never wrong about anything, no mistakes in our history of decision making’. Like Jesus fucking Christ, gain an ounce or thimble or whatever dumbass unit you use full of perspective and self doubt.
when the root problem of gun violence is 'people having moments of unhingedness"
And here’s where the statement falls apart - you’ve provided nothing showing the root causes of firearm violence to be unaddressable. Heck, specific to mass shootings, the problems - including “unhingedness” - are very well-understood and very addressable. Specific to aggressive dogs, the common theme raised in these discussions - especially in criticism of this breed-behavior nonsense - is that the person behind the dog is the problem. I’m interested in hearing how you see that as unaddressable.
Again, this is why America is the only western country in the world where the number one cause of death for children is gun violence.
Would that be the NEJM study which directly recognizes the reasons for such an anomaly are unclear in the same breath it recognizes the overlap with the time of crisis and desperation (hmm, where have we seen that before…) that was the COVID-19 pandemic as if to highlight an explanation, ignores that there were other significantly more severe increases in causes of child deaths (e.g. drug overdose and poisoning), intentionally combines suicide and homicide as if they’re the same, and generally disregards everything in favor of a single distilled talking point? One that specifically avoids asking why and exploring the anomaly?
“Boys, for example, accounted for 83% of all gun deaths among children and teens in 2021. Girls accounted for 17%.”
"Older children and teens are much more likely than younger kids to be killed in gun-related incidents. Those ages 12 to 17 accounted for 86% of all gun deaths among children and teens in 2021"
“Racial and ethnic differences in gun deaths among kids are stark. In 2021, 46% of all gun deaths among children and teens involved Black victims, even though only 14% of the U.S. under-18 population that year was Black. Much smaller shares of gun deaths among children and teens in 2021 involved White (32%), Hispanic (17%) and Asian (1%) victims.”
“There are also major racial and ethnic differences in the types of gun deaths involving children and teens. In 2021, a large majority of gun deaths involving Black children and teens (84%) were homicides, while 9% were suicides. Among White children and teens, by contrast, the majority of gun deaths (66%) were suicides, while a much smaller share (24%) were homicides.”
I wonder if there are, say, any long-standing inequality issues regarding opportunity & desperation between some of these demographics, issues which may be thematically similar with observations raised of mass shootings… Nah, it’s gotta be what the headline said.
Yes we do, read any of the past century of the history of eugenics and youll see the horrible outcomes that result when you try to prevent it.
I see the irony here flew right by you. You’re entirely okay eradicating an entire breed of a living thing because you’re angry with it / scared of it / just don’t like it, but balk at humanity having done the same before to its own? Interesting.
It is absolutely insane how fucking deluded you are.
Had you actually addressed a point anywhere in this conversation, I’d have given that some consideration.
You can see literally orders of magnitude more western people looking at your children getting slaughtered for no reason but go ‘nope, Merica always the best, never wrong about anything, no mistakes in our history of decision making’.
Quite the opposite - we, instead, seek to solve underlying issues rather than only caring how the violence occurred. You could learn a thing or two from seeking to improve lives. Also, never wrong about anything? Lmao.
I see the irony here flew right by you. You’re entirely okay eradicating an entire breed of a living thing because you’re angry with it / scared of it / just don’t like it, but balk at humanity having done the same before to its own? Interesting.
Eliminating a breed of domestic animal that we created for own purposes by not killing them but just not actively breeding them anymore, is not the same thing as eugenics.
Read some fucking history before making dumbass comments like that.
Had you actually addressed a point anywhere in this conversation, I’d have given that some consideration.
Lol, you just through out of a bunch of bullshit to muddy the water
Quite the opposite - we, instead, seek to solve underlying issues rather than only caring how the violence occurred.
Bruh, you have metal detectors in every single fucking school and useless cops with guns harassing children in the hallway, shut the fuck up about addressing the “root problems”. You’re treating the symptoms the same as every country, you just have your hands cuffed by your dumbass 200 year old constitution that prevents you from treating the effective system that every other country treats.
Go ahead and tell me, how many mass casualty incidents were there at UK schools last year? Now how many at American schools?
You literally live in the ONLY country on earth where there are regular school shootings, but noooooooo, the difference there couldn’t possibly be that you’re also the only nation on earth with unrestricted firearms being purchasable by anyone. Totally unrelated things!
You’re honestly being so fucking stupid it hurts. Enjoy your next Trump presidency and further slide into shit. Dumbassery like “guns are good! They help people” when your children literally have gun violence as their number one cause of death is flat out embarrassing.
liminating a breed of domestic animal that we created for own purposes by not killing them but just not actively breeding them anymore, is not the same thing as eugenics.
Biased selective breeding quite literally is eugenics. Try picking up a dictionary sometime.
Bruh, you have metal detectors in every single fucking school and useless cops with guns harassing children in the hallway, shut the fuck up about addressing the “root problems”. You’re treating the symptoms the same as every country, you just have your hands cuffed by your dumbass 200 year old constitution that prevents you from treating the effective system that every other country treats.
More bland hyperbole? Neat.
Lol, you just through out of a bunch of bullshit to muddy the water
Projection, from you? No way! One of us is operating entirely on bullshit, I agree - but it isn’t me.
Go ahead and tell me, how many mass casualty incidents were there at UK schools last year? Now how many at American schools?
You literally live in the ONLY country on earth where there are regular school shootings, but noooooooo, the difference there couldn’t possibly be that you’re also the only nation on earth with unrestricted firearms being purchasable by anyone. Totally unrelated things!
Ah - and there it is, the pretense there’s only one singular difference between the two countries that are otherwise complete identical copies of each other so as to conclusively show there are no other factors to the violence issues, right on cue - true to form, in rant form and dodging one more by criticisms raised.
You’re honestly being so fucking stupid it hurts. Enjoy your next Trump presidency and further slide into shit. Dumbassery like “guns are good! They help people” when your children literally have gun violence as their number one cause of death is flat out embarrassing.
Ah - and there it is, the pretense there’s only one singular difference between the two countries that are otherwise complete identical copies of each other so as to conclusively show there are no other factors to the violence issues, right on cue - true to form, in rant form and dodging one more by criticisms raised.
Lmao, you’re right, the denial and cognitive dissonance that Americans have to live with every day would drive anyone to the breaking point
It’s fortunate, then, that we only have to live with your cognitive dissonance and denial through your disingenuous shitposting on the internet, and that despite your fearmongering and other sensationalism, such breaking points are still pretty rare.
I think his point is that keeping guns broadly but e.g. banning “assault” weapons doesn’t keep people safe.
In NYS, for example, you can have a semi auto rifle easily enough, but it can’t have a telescoping stock, pistol grip, etc.
Compare that to the much broader restrictions in Australian or British gun laws, and it’s no surprise why you still have many, many more mass shootings in NY.
In NYS, for example, you can have a semi auto rifle easily enough, but it can’t have a telescoping stock, pistol grip, etc.
I would argue that the primary driver of that ineffectiveness is not the fact that they’re trying to ban specific types of guns, but that all of those things are completely legal in neighbouring or nearby jurisdictions with no border controls between them. It wouldn’t solve the whole gun violence problem but if America as a whole banned them I think you would see much more of an effect than just a singular state.
Look at last year’s mass shooting in Buffalo, where a racist drove halfway across the state to shoot up a grocery store in a black neighborhood. He shot 12 people, including a “good guy with a gun” that the NRA claims stops attacks like that.
He had bought his rifle legally in NYS, but went across the border to PA to buy 30 round magazines, which are illegal in NY.
Having access to 20 more rounds per mag than NY’s max certainly didn’t help things, but that terrorist attack would probably still have happened if NYs laws were nation wide.
The problem is both that location-specific gun control is ineffective because you can just go a state/city over, and that passing effective gun control even in a state like NY is almost impossible.
Man you nailed it, in today’s world. But there definitely was an American pitbull breed and there still is but all these designer and backyard breeders fucked it all up. It’s been a while since I’ve looked into this but either the AKC or UKC would list them officially.
And now it’s not even cheap. It used to be that it sucked, but you could walk out stuffed for like $4, but the last time my wife and I went on a road trip it was literally like $30 for the two of us.
At those prices you’re better off going to an actual restaurant unless you have absolutely no time for it
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.