|
|
Post by s on Sept 18, 2023 12:49:26 GMT
Basically the English bred a dog whose sole purpose was to charge a bull and get gored. The reason why pitbulls tend not to let go unlike other dogs after biting is that the only way for it not to be gored would be to bite the snout of the bull, which causes it to get confused and freeze in place
"But the most important quality, and that, perhaps, which causes all the others, although we cannot perceive the connexion, is the diminution of the brain. The cerebral capacity of the bull-dog is sensibly smaller than in any other race; and it is doubtless to the decrease of the encephalon that we must attribute its inferiority to all others in every thing relating to intelligence. The bull-dog is scarcely capable of any education, and is fitted for nothing but combat and ferocity."
"This animal takes his name from his having been employed, in former times, in assaulting the bull, and he is used for the same purpose at the present day, in those districts where this brutal amusement is still practised."
|
|
|
|
Post by s on Sept 18, 2023 12:51:47 GMT
The pitbull's history is a rather convoluted one - born of a mixture of bulldogs and terriers, and deliberately bred from inception to be cataclysmically retarded and have zero sense of self-preservation
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Sept 18, 2023 14:42:29 GMT
Confidence and unwavering self-belief was favoured in their evolution because that attitude wins fights. Avoiding the fight was not an option for them, winning was the only avenue to breeding success, so they have the right mentality to make them most likely to win.
|
|
ophio
Ruminant
Posts: 230
|
Post by ophio on Sept 18, 2023 15:57:35 GMT
I absolutely agree but also disagree on the vet part, a dog doesn't know it will be taken to a vet, a dog runs into the wild predator (no matter if it will die in the attempt) because it's designed to be doing that without caring about injuries or even death. It's bred to show no self preservation or fear. It just doesn't care, if it will die it will die in the attempt. Long story short, Dale has a point in claiming that some human emotions are the same as animal emotions, the animal coward is logically the same as the human coward (fearful). BUT. There's still a big difference between a cowardly animal and a cowardly human, and all of this is in how we humans perceive both. We are humanising them too much, we humans are biased and describe everything based on our society-ideals' take. To us, men especially, running from a confrontation is bad and therefore coward. Because we as humans glorify courage and self-sacrifice. A man must ve courageous, defend his woman and be a fearless fighter ready to fight everyone that causes danger. Wild animals simply don't give a whole liquid shit about these ideals, if they ever could talk they'd make fun of us and call us the retards we actually are. "uh lol you put suicidal thoughts in front of self-preservation? Do you think we actually care about this shit? Our goal is to SURVIVE to spread out genes, you think I'm going to risk injuries for an useless fight I might win which would give me nothing but potential injuries? Fuck it lol, you guys are sickos lovers of courage, I choose smartness and survival." This is what a wild predator would think about us . Humanising or anthropomorphising animals can be a problem, but I also think we can often go too far in acting like they are totally different when they aren't. We are animals, and we are mammals. We are biological machines that work pretty similar in many fundamental ways to how a puma works. Especially when talking about primal instincts like self preservation. Where we differ is "cultural", and that is the taboo and shame involved with being a "coward" in human society. Obviously pumas have none of that, and it doesn't make sense for us to laugh and sneer at them for being cowards because they never got the memo that it isn't cool. However, we go too far when we act like their "cowardice" is totally different to ours, in regards to what is being experienced by the animal. It is the same. When a wild cat is being risk averse, it is experiencing fear the same way we experience fear. There's this common mischaracterisation that because the reason they are risk averse is because it is smart for their survival, then the cat is actually cool as a cucumber when it runs away and hides up a tree, it is just logically deciding it is not worth risking being injured. No, that is not true, it is filled with fear and dread and panic the same way we are when we are scared and trying to avoid a risky situation. That is how the message gets through to a mammal. Its not all cool and calm and composed when under duress and just deciding smartly to make a tactical retreat. That is not how they work. Its scared and that is why it is fleeing. Its just the same as us, only difference is we criticise and judge eachother for letting self preservation take over, we pride ourselves on suppressing self preservation and being brave. They don't. But we all experience emotions the same, that is the primal animal part of us. Thinking about the reasons behind the emotions, that is uniquely human, but feeling the emotions and responding to them is primal and animalistic. Too often people get that backwards, they imagine the simple animal thinking about the rational reason to be risk averse, and assume it is not feeling emotions. Its the opposite, it is only feeling the fear and dread and panic, and is not thinking about why at all. Imo dangerous people are usually more risk averse. An experienced gangster would usually try to act deferential to a police officer while an insane homeless person will attack the police officer even though the gangster is the more dangerous guy. Ditto in most gang wars where its the younger impulsive members who try to pick fights but the older more experienced members who try to calm them down. You can also see that in martial arts, the white belt in karate would be more likely to test his skills in a street fight while most people experienced in mma or boxing would try to avoid a confrontation if possible outside the ring. Imo becoming dangerous takes time to hone your craft and once someone goes through shit, they'd realize that a lot of risks just simply are not worth it. Someone like this would probably the closest approximation to a pitbull attitude and its very apparent, he's not very dangerous but rather dumb. |
|
|
|
Post by s on Sept 18, 2023 17:55:40 GMT
What do you think would happen in the fight between the 105kg Puma and the Pitbull + blue heeler + Kelpie pack? They would be nipping and harassing the cat, heeler would keep forcing it to turn, and once they have toyed with the cat for many hours the cat can't resist the pitbull lugging it. I was asking for an actual head-on fight lol, not simply harassing him for several hours Also Pumas don't care about Dogs "forcing it to turn", see this. Literally in a cliff and he still doesn't really care, just annoyed by the barking. I think Puma would back himself into a corner and basically saying "Want to get me? Go if you dare" |
|
|
|
Post by s on Sept 18, 2023 17:59:03 GMT
Humanising or anthropomorphising animals can be a problem, but I also think we can often go too far in acting like they are totally different when they aren't. We are animals, and we are mammals. We are biological machines that work pretty similar in many fundamental ways to how a puma works. Especially when talking about primal instincts like self preservation. Where we differ is "cultural", and that is the taboo and shame involved with being a "coward" in human society. Obviously pumas have none of that, and it doesn't make sense for us to laugh and sneer at them for being cowards because they never got the memo that it isn't cool. However, we go too far when we act like their "cowardice" is totally different to ours, in regards to what is being experienced by the animal. It is the same. When a wild cat is being risk averse, it is experiencing fear the same way we experience fear. There's this common mischaracterisation that because the reason they are risk averse is because it is smart for their survival, then the cat is actually cool as a cucumber when it runs away and hides up a tree, it is just logically deciding it is not worth risking being injured. No, that is not true, it is filled with fear and dread and panic the same way we are when we are scared and trying to avoid a risky situation. That is how the message gets through to a mammal. Its not all cool and calm and composed when under duress and just deciding smartly to make a tactical retreat. That is not how they work. Its scared and that is why it is fleeing. Its just the same as us, only difference is we criticise and judge eachother for letting self preservation take over, we pride ourselves on suppressing self preservation and being brave. They don't. But we all experience emotions the same, that is the primal animal part of us. Thinking about the reasons behind the emotions, that is uniquely human, but feeling the emotions and responding to them is primal and animalistic. Too often people get that backwards, they imagine the simple animal thinking about the rational reason to be risk averse, and assume it is not feeling emotions. Its the opposite, it is only feeling the fear and dread and panic, and is not thinking about why at all. Imo dangerous people are usually more risk averse. An experienced gangster would usually try to act deferential to a police officer while an insane homeless person will attack the police officer even though the gangster is the more dangerous guy. Ditto in most gang wars where its the younger impulsive members who try to pick fights but the older more experienced members who try to calm them down. You can also see that in martial arts, the white belt in karate would be more likely to test his skills in a street fight while most people experienced in mma or boxing would try to avoid a confrontation if possible outside the ring. Imo becoming dangerous takes time to hone your craft and once someone goes through shit, they'd realize that a lot of risks just simply are not worth it. Someone like this would probably the closest approximation to a pitbull attitude and its very apparent, he's not very dangerous but rather dumb. An actual Zombie would be the closest thing to an human equivalent of a Pitbull lol, as little self-preservation as possible, bare minimum level of intelligence to be functional in fighting and as agressive as possible |
|
|
|
Post by s on Sept 18, 2023 18:03:07 GMT
Confidence and unwavering self-belief was favoured in their evolution because that attitude wins fights. Avoiding the fight was not an option for them, winning was the only avenue to breeding success, so they have the right mentality to make them most likely to win. And also the most likely chance to be horribly gored if they lose a fight. Because of their lack of self-preservation they don't recognize they are losing and still think they are winning even if they are drowning on his own blood and can't move because their back is broken. Therefore they don't withdraw at the right time. For better or for worse. |
|
|
|
Post by s on Sept 18, 2023 18:06:27 GMT
Basically the English bred a dog whose sole purpose was to charge a bull and get gored. The reason why pitbulls tend not to let go unlike other dogs after biting is that the only way for it not to be gored would be to bite the snout of the bull, which causes it to get confused and freeze in place "But the most important quality, and that, perhaps, which causes all the others, although we cannot perceive the connexion, is the diminution of the brain. The cerebral capacity of the bull-dog is sensibly smaller than in any other race; and it is doubtless to the decrease of the encephalon that we must attribute its inferiority to all others in every thing relating to intelligence. The bull-dog is scarcely capable of any education, and is fitted for nothing but combat and ferocity." "This animal takes his name from his having been employed, in former times, in assaulting the bull, and he is used for the same purpose at the present day, in those districts where this brutal amusement is still practised." I never denied that they are great at fighting btw, homever they suck at every other task |
|
|
|
Post by Bolushi on Sept 18, 2023 19:53:21 GMT
They would be nipping and harassing the cat, heeler would keep forcing it to turn, and once they have toyed with the cat for many hours the cat can't resist the pitbull lugging it. I was asking for an actual head-on fight lol, not simply harassing him for several hours Also Pumas don't care about Dogs "forcing it to turn", see this. Literally in a cliff and he still doesn't really care, just annoyed by the barking. I think Puma would back himself into a corner and basically saying "Want to get me? Go if you dare" It's the most practical team you can get in all likelihood and the best way to go about it. You hold the pitbull back because it's liable to rush in and die, then you let the herders bully and harass the cat for as long as necessary to ensure the cat is unable to fight competently whatsoever. That's the best team possible maybe, but perhaps a big boarhound would be better than a pitbull. I dunno... the bigger the dog the bigger the target so the easier for the monstrous cat to subdue and kill. I'm speaking from a hunting standpoint, if I was trafficking drugs to Wisconsin from Mexico and ended up spilling 25 kilograms of fentanyl, 77 pounds of weed, and 36 pints of cocaine on the interstate and was forced to kill "El Loco" the puma or I'd get left in a ditch with my head chopped off that's the team you go with. Puma could back itself into a corner but the kelpie would be up in its face baiting the cat into trying to attack, but the kelpie would be too quick and the heeler being more daring mentally would start landing nips that would get harder and harder as the cat wore itself out more. Slip the pitbull on the cat when it's too exhausted to do anything and you win. For this pack maybe the Boergrey could provide this but it's not so likely with just one dog. Perhaps a pair of Boergrey x Airedales/collies/heelers/street dogs/etc. could serve a similar purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by s on Sept 19, 2023 7:28:11 GMT
I was asking for an actual head-on fight lol, not simply harassing him for several hours Also Pumas don't care about Dogs "forcing it to turn", see this. Literally in a cliff and he still doesn't really care, just annoyed by the barking. I think Puma would back himself into a corner and basically saying "Want to get me? Go if you dare" It's the most practical team you can get in all likelihood and the best way to go about it. You hold the pitbull back because it's liable to rush in and die, then you let the herders bully and harass the cat for as long as necessary to ensure the cat is unable to fight competently whatsoever. That's the best team possible maybe, but perhaps a big boarhound would be better than a pitbull. I dunno... the bigger the dog the bigger the target so the easier for the monstrous cat to subdue and kill. I'm speaking from a hunting standpoint, if I was trafficking drugs to Wisconsin from Mexico and ended up spilling 25 kilograms of fentanyl, 77 pounds of weed, and 36 pints of cocaine on the interstate and was forced to kill "El Loco" the puma or I'd get left in a ditch with my head chopped off that's the team you go with. Puma could back itself into a corner but the kelpie would be up in its face baiting the cat into trying to attack, but the kelpie would be too quick and the heeler being more daring mentally would start landing nips that would get harder and harder as the cat wore itself out more. Slip the pitbull on the cat when it's too exhausted to do anything and you win. For this pack maybe the Boergrey could provide this but it's not so likely with just one dog. Perhaps a pair of Boergrey x Airedales/collies/heelers/street dogs/etc. could serve a similar purpose. 1 - Pumas don't behave like that, there are videos where they are cornered in cliffs by Hounds, with the abyss below them and are simply annoyed instead of reactive/defensive On top of a cliff, not alarmed Gets tail grabbed, doesn't care that much 2 - Puma would be resting all the time lol, you can't exhaust any animal in an scenario where it's resting and simply starting at the Dogs 90% of the time. 3 - Cats have insane reflexes, any attempt at "nipping" would probably end up like this As shown on these Cat Vs Snake videos, Snakes (or really the vast majority of animals) can't really compete with them in reflexes |
|
|
|
Post by grippingwhiteness on Sept 19, 2023 8:20:45 GMT
Pumas generally attack or fight when a confrontation starts, generally the max they are doing when barely bayed at they could start making fake attacks to intimidate, as that pawtrapped cougar did to that small dog before fighting and (on defense) the dogo that a few seconds later ambushed it, failed ambush because the dogo got beaten badly.
Generally as much as a fight doesn't start and there's just baying cougars will act annoyed or just standing still because they are probably smarter than leopards and they don't wanna waste energy as long as a fight doesn't start. A leopard in such situation would go on rampage and attack and maul everything that moves including the guy recording. If gunshots do not scare them the lower bark of a hound wouldn't either. There's a reason why people don't hunt leopards in environments similar to these (such as Iran) . If the cat lacks the chance to tree and is cornered it wouldn't stand there and growl/hiss
It will do this :
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Sept 19, 2023 15:52:58 GMT
Humanising or anthropomorphising animals can be a problem, but I also think we can often go too far in acting like they are totally different when they aren't. We are animals, and we are mammals. We are biological machines that work pretty similar in many fundamental ways to how a puma works. Especially when talking about primal instincts like self preservation. Where we differ is "cultural", and that is the taboo and shame involved with being a "coward" in human society. Obviously pumas have none of that, and it doesn't make sense for us to laugh and sneer at them for being cowards because they never got the memo that it isn't cool. However, we go too far when we act like their "cowardice" is totally different to ours, in regards to what is being experienced by the animal. It is the same. When a wild cat is being risk averse, it is experiencing fear the same way we experience fear. There's this common mischaracterisation that because the reason they are risk averse is because it is smart for their survival, then the cat is actually cool as a cucumber when it runs away and hides up a tree, it is just logically deciding it is not worth risking being injured. No, that is not true, it is filled with fear and dread and panic the same way we are when we are scared and trying to avoid a risky situation. That is how the message gets through to a mammal. Its not all cool and calm and composed when under duress and just deciding smartly to make a tactical retreat. That is not how they work. Its scared and that is why it is fleeing. Its just the same as us, only difference is we criticise and judge eachother for letting self preservation take over, we pride ourselves on suppressing self preservation and being brave. They don't. But we all experience emotions the same, that is the primal animal part of us. Thinking about the reasons behind the emotions, that is uniquely human, but feeling the emotions and responding to them is primal and animalistic. Too often people get that backwards, they imagine the simple animal thinking about the rational reason to be risk averse, and assume it is not feeling emotions. Its the opposite, it is only feeling the fear and dread and panic, and is not thinking about why at all. Imo dangerous people are usually more risk averse. An experienced gangster would usually try to act deferential to a police officer while an insane homeless person will attack the police officer even though the gangster is the more dangerous guy. Ditto in most gang wars where its the younger impulsive members who try to pick fights but the older more experienced members who try to calm them down. You can also see that in martial arts, the white belt in karate would be more likely to test his skills in a street fight while most people experienced in mma or boxing would try to avoid a confrontation if possible outside the ring. Imo becoming dangerous takes time to hone your craft and once someone goes through shit, they'd realize that a lot of risks just simply are not worth it. Someone like this would probably the closest approximation to a pitbull attitude and its very apparent, he's not very dangerous but rather dumb. Yeah this analogy is kind of crazy. The disrespect is off the charts. This inability to appreciate the reality that dogs (any kind of dog you care to mention) is the way it is for its benefit, so that it can perform its task better, just shows a deep failure to appreciate what dogs are. A failure to give them their due respect as legitimate living organisms adapted to a legitimate niche. They aren't random goofy accessories, they are tools crafted to be optimal for specific tasks. Bullbreeds are confident in fights specifically to make them MORE dangerous. They are the organism where winning fights is a priority, and what they are is the result of that priority. With wild predators survival is the priority, minimising injury and etc. Its not even like a pitbull is more likely to die in a fight, that is a mischaracterisation, it is actually more likely to survive the fight with a high-self-preservation wild animal, because the wild animal won't be fully committed to the fight. It will want to stop and flee, and that is when you start losing. The pitbulls "lack of self preservation" refers to its willingness to keep fighting with confidence while being injured, not to make it die easier, to make it succeed. The injuries can be addressed later, that is its luxury that allows it to be this way while a wild animal can not afford to be. But it makes zero sense if that behaviour made it more susceptible to death and failure within the fight, that is not the case. Their mentality makes them more dangerous and more liable to win, that is why they have it. A wild animal doesn't have it because "losing" is no big deal, they can lose and leave. And so that is usually what is going to happen. In a fight where leaving isn't an option, the fact the wild animal will still be wishing it could leave and hating being there will only make it perform WORSE and be more susceptible to injury and death. Fully committing to the fight with confidence would be more optimal in that scenario, but they aren't designed for that scenario. The dog is. You can pick out lots of ways in which wild animals will be more impressive than domestic dogs. Fighting isn't one of them and having the optimal mentality for fighting is definitely not one of them. Making out like their confidence is akin to the naive stupidity of some twink who can't fight is bullshit, their confidence is akin to the best most dangerous human fighters in history, as a standard. A rare level of warrior mentality in humans is much less rare in bullbreeds, because it has been specifically favoured in their cutthroat selection. It wasn't favoured to make them worse at their role. Totally absurd. If you just all started understanding that wild animals are first and foremost wild survivalists. Winning fights is not their priority, and as a result they don't have optimal traits for winning fights. They have optimal traits for surviving, and front and centre of that is being a shrewdly cautious coward. Avoiding fights. To the best of their ability avoiding conflict where they probably will get hurt, and having an innate instinctive dislike and disdain for conflict where they are likely to get hurt. One which frankly will make them perform worse in a forced fight, and make them more liable to get exhausted and get hurt and get killed because they will be amateurs performing badly in a sport they hate. All this turns around in the sport they like - for cats that is ambush assassination on unsuspecting vulnerable target. Then yes they will look like bruce lee or whatever and be confident and cool as shit and pull off a really cool kill. Your fantasy is giving them that same mentality in an activity they despise and avoid at all costs. That's delusional, and not reality. Gripping dogs, good ones, really do have genuine confidence and passion for combat, and they have that to make them better and more dangerous in combat. You can't twist it into a negative for combat. A negative for long term independent wilderness survival? Absolutely. Not a negative in a fight. Not even 1% negative in a fight. ALL positive. Extremely beneficial. So much so it should always be the top most important consideration before weaponry or anything else. Who BELIEVES they are going to win, who wants to be there and is happy and willing to swim into the deep waters of combat? That should always be the top consideration. |
|
|
|
Post by s on Sept 19, 2023 18:35:31 GMT
Imo dangerous people are usually more risk averse. An experienced gangster would usually try to act deferential to a police officer while an insane homeless person will attack the police officer even though the gangster is the more dangerous guy. Ditto in most gang wars where its the younger impulsive members who try to pick fights but the older more experienced members who try to calm them down. You can also see that in martial arts, the white belt in karate would be more likely to test his skills in a street fight while most people experienced in mma or boxing would try to avoid a confrontation if possible outside the ring. Imo becoming dangerous takes time to hone your craft and once someone goes through shit, they'd realize that a lot of risks just simply are not worth it. Someone like this would probably the closest approximation to a pitbull attitude and its very apparent, he's not very dangerous but rather dumb. Yeah this analogy is kind of crazy. The disrespect is off the charts. This inability to appreciate the reality that dogs (any kind of dog you care to mention) is the way it is for its benefit, so that it can perform its task better, just shows a deep failure to appreciate what dogs are. A failure to give them their due respect as legitimate living organisms adapted to a legitimate niche. They aren't random goofy accessories, they are tools crafted to be optimal for specific tasks. Bullbreeds are confident in fights specifically to make them MORE dangerous. They are the organism where winning fights is a priority, and what they are is the result of that priority. With wild predators survival is the priority, minimising injury and etc. Its not even like a pitbull is more likely to die in a fight, that is a mischaracterisation, it is actually more likely to survive the fight with a high-self-preservation wild animal, because the wild animal won't be fully committed to the fight. It will want to stop and flee, and that is when you start losing. The pitbulls "lack of self preservation" refers to its willingness to keep fighting with confidence while being injured, not to make it die easier, to make it succeed. The injuries can be addressed later, that is its luxury that allows it to be this way while a wild animal can not afford to be. But it makes zero sense if that behaviour made it more susceptible to death and failure within the fight, that is not the case. Their mentality makes them more dangerous and more liable to win, that is why they have it. A wild animal doesn't have it because "losing" is no big deal, they can lose and leave. And so that is usually what is going to happen. In a fight where leaving isn't an option, the fact the wild animal will still be wishing it could leave and hating being there will only make it perform WORSE and be more susceptible to injury and death. Fully committing to the fight with confidence would be more optimal in that scenario, but they aren't designed for that scenario. The dog is. You can pick out lots of ways in which wild animals will be more impressive than domestic dogs. Fighting isn't one of them and having the optimal mentality for fighting is definitely not one of them. Making out like their confidence is akin to the naive stupidity of some twink who can't fight is bullshit, their confidence is akin to the best most dangerous human fighters in history, as a standard. A rare level of warrior mentality in humans is much less rare in bullbreeds, because it has been specifically favoured in their cutthroat selection. It wasn't favoured to make them worse at their role. Totally absurd. If you just all started understanding that wild animals are first and foremost wild survivalists. Winning fights is not their priority, and as a result they don't have optimal traits for winning fights. They have optimal traits for surviving, and front and centre of that is being a shrewdly cautious coward. Avoiding fights. To the best of their ability avoiding conflict where they probably will get hurt, and having an innate instinctive dislike and disdain for conflict where they are likely to get hurt. One which frankly will make them perform worse in a forced fight, and make them more liable to get exhausted and get hurt and get killed because they will be amateurs performing badly in a sport they hate. All this turns around in the sport they like - for cats that is ambush assassination on unsuspecting vulnerable target. Then yes they will look like bruce lee or whatever and be confident and cool as shit and pull off a really cool kill. Your fantasy is giving them that same mentality in an activity they despise and avoid at all costs. That's delusional, and not reality. Gripping dogs, good ones, really do have genuine confidence and passion for combat, and they have that to make them better and more dangerous in combat. You can't twist it into a negative for combat. A negative for long term independent wilderness survival? Absolutely. Not a negative in a fight. Not even 1% negative in a fight. ALL positive. Extremely beneficial. So much so it should always be the top most important consideration before weaponry or anything else. Who BELIEVES they are going to win, who wants to be there and is happy and willing to swim into the deep waters of combat? That should always be the top consideration. They are indeed S-tier fighters, i don't deny that, but they are only worth for fighting and ferocity, nothing else, Bulldogs have the smallest brains of all dog types by a significant margin. It's extremely hard to train or educate them for anything not fight-related. Their self-preservation instinct was intentionally reduced as much as possible, if they were released in the Wild their packs would die off, not intelligent enough to attack in close group coordination, or to form packs with organized structures for that matter. Not fast enough to catch most prey and not having self-preservation instinct which would cause them to attack the nearest Moose/Bison and get stomped/headbutted in 2 seconds with minimal effort. And for that matter Wild Bulldogs would have lost the ability to recover from wounds received in fights at the Veterinary. |
|
|
|
Post by s on Sept 19, 2023 18:55:25 GMT
Alongside their teeth not being made for killing, which would make killing even a White-tail Deer take a hefty amount of time, if they even manage to outrun it that is.
|
|
ophio
Ruminant
Posts: 230
|
Post by ophio on Sept 19, 2023 19:48:29 GMT
Imo dangerous people are usually more risk averse. An experienced gangster would usually try to act deferential to a police officer while an insane homeless person will attack the police officer even though the gangster is the more dangerous guy. Ditto in most gang wars where its the younger impulsive members who try to pick fights but the older more experienced members who try to calm them down. You can also see that in martial arts, the white belt in karate would be more likely to test his skills in a street fight while most people experienced in mma or boxing would try to avoid a confrontation if possible outside the ring. Imo becoming dangerous takes time to hone your craft and once someone goes through shit, they'd realize that a lot of risks just simply are not worth it. Someone like this would probably the closest approximation to a pitbull attitude and its very apparent, he's not very dangerous but rather dumb. Yeah this analogy is kind of crazy. The disrespect is off the charts. This inability to appreciate the reality that dogs (any kind of dog you care to mention) is the way it is for its benefit, so that it can perform its task better, just shows a deep failure to appreciate what dogs are. A failure to give them their due respect as legitimate living organisms adapted to a legitimate niche. They aren't random goofy accessories, they are tools crafted to be optimal for specific tasks. Bullbreeds are confident in fights specifically to make them MORE dangerous. They are the organism where winning fights is a priority, and what they are is the result of that priority. With wild predators survival is the priority, minimising injury and etc. Its not even like a pitbull is more likely to die in a fight, that is a mischaracterisation, it is actually more likely to survive the fight with a high-self-preservation wild animal, because the wild animal won't be fully committed to the fight. It will want to stop and flee, and that is when you start losing. The pitbulls "lack of self preservation" refers to its willingness to keep fighting with confidence while being injured, not to make it die easier, to make it succeed. The injuries can be addressed later, that is its luxury that allows it to be this way while a wild animal can not afford to be. But it makes zero sense if that behaviour made it more susceptible to death and failure within the fight, that is not the case. Their mentality makes them more dangerous and more liable to win, that is why they have it. A wild animal doesn't have it because "losing" is no big deal, they can lose and leave. And so that is usually what is going to happen. In a fight where leaving isn't an option, the fact the wild animal will still be wishing it could leave and hating being there will only make it perform WORSE and be more susceptible to injury and death. Fully committing to the fight with confidence would be more optimal in that scenario, but they aren't designed for that scenario. The dog is. You can pick out lots of ways in which wild animals will be more impressive than domestic dogs. Fighting isn't one of them and having the optimal mentality for fighting is definitely not one of them. Making out like their confidence is akin to the naive stupidity of some twink who can't fight is bullshit, their confidence is akin to the best most dangerous human fighters in history, as a standard. A rare level of warrior mentality in humans is much less rare in bullbreeds, because it has been specifically favoured in their cutthroat selection. It wasn't favoured to make them worse at their role. Totally absurd. If you just all started understanding that wild animals are first and foremost wild survivalists. Winning fights is not their priority, and as a result they don't have optimal traits for winning fights. They have optimal traits for surviving, and front and centre of that is being a shrewdly cautious coward. Avoiding fights. To the best of their ability avoiding conflict where they probably will get hurt, and having an innate instinctive dislike and disdain for conflict where they are likely to get hurt. One which frankly will make them perform worse in a forced fight, and make them more liable to get exhausted and get hurt and get killed because they will be amateurs performing badly in a sport they hate. All this turns around in the sport they like - for cats that is ambush assassination on unsuspecting vulnerable target. Then yes they will look like bruce lee or whatever and be confident and cool as shit and pull off a really cool kill. Your fantasy is giving them that same mentality in an activity they despise and avoid at all costs. That's delusional, and not reality. Gripping dogs, good ones, really do have genuine confidence and passion for combat, and they have that to make them better and more dangerous in combat. You can't twist it into a negative for combat. A negative for long term independent wilderness survival? Absolutely. Not a negative in a fight. Not even 1% negative in a fight. ALL positive. Extremely beneficial. So much so it should always be the top most important consideration before weaponry or anything else. Who BELIEVES they are going to win, who wants to be there and is happy and willing to swim into the deep waters of combat? That should always be the top consideration. I'm not taking issue with the pit bull's competency as a fighter but rather your statement that anyone who avoids a fight cannot fight well. This can easily be refuted by the fact that high level fighters, whether they are special forces veterans, professional mma fighters, and dangerous outlaws avoid fights if they could. Most street fights are partaken by people that society would not consider dangerous, drunk/high randos who do not know how to fight. Hell, in mma, its not uncommon for elite mma fighters to avoid hard sparring in the weeks before a big fight to avoid unecessary injuries even though he can absolutely perform if he has to. |
|
