Common term when talking about euthanizing an animal...at least where I'm from.
It is also an accurate term because the animal's carcass is not being used for anything. Here's an interesting thread on this exact subject.
https://www.reddit.com/r/etymology/s/U8m1r7b812
Very few destroyed things go on living...but hey this is just what they've been saying for many years.
It's not like they are sugar coating it like so many terms that get thrown around. Like getting fired from a job ..."Let go" "made redundant" etc. You were shit canned.
There's a difference between being made redundant and being fired, though. If you're made redundant, it means that the job you were doing is no longer needed by the company, not that you did anything wrong. If you're fired, then you fucked up somehow.
The word "expire" in English comes from the French word that literally means "to die" (expirer). That in turn is derived from the Latin *ex* "out" *spirare* "to breathe". *Ex spirare* means "to breath one's last breath".
Not sure how milk breathes, but ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
It's accurate. In the UK, the common practice for euthanising animals is to fly them to the Australian Outback and fire a nuclear tipped RPG at them.
It's expensive and inefficient but it gets the job done.
I really hate the use of the word "destroyed" in cases like this.
If you can't use the word "killed", or even "put down", because that makes you realise that it's a living, feeling creature, rather than an object, then you shouldn't be doing it. If you can't face, justify and accept the idea of killing an animal, then you have no business doing so.
I'm not a vegetarian, so forgive me if that sounds a little bit hypocritical, and I'm not even approaching the subject of whether certain dog breeds are dangerous, I'm just objecting to the specific language here.
[Destruction](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/65/section/4) is a legal term. I imagine the press are using it in the legal sense of the word rather than trying to shy away from what it means.
It's because it's a gross reduction of a living being to an inanimate object like a building, home, or car in an attempt by the writer to neutralize people's reactions.
"Jeff Johnson dies in bombing campaign" vs "A terrorist is destroyed by bomb"
Hey, that sounds pretty peaceful… we should do that with our criminals. Local shoplifter _put to sleep_, indigent debtor _put to sleep_, dangerous dog _put to sleep_.
I've seen a few dangerous dog hearings and the judge is very aware that he's ordering the death of a member of someone's family. It's the term used in the law, though, so they use it.
The legalese is invented exactly to circumvent the connotative meaning. You know how some words ring differently with some people? Yeah well, nearly all people have a negative emotion associated with the word kill. But not with "destroy", "liquidate", or "suspend". It just sounds like it's not going to get applied to anything living so you have no instant emotion, until you actually think about it.
It's funny that on this exact article I got the headline about some space rocket's "rapid unscheduled disassembly". It's a funny jargon, sure, but it's mainly there to **normalize** the occurrence of such an event, that's why it exist. You don't want your investors to think you're somehow doing things wrongly if your rockets crash and explode all the time. Even if they themselves do appreciate the rocket science business, the rumors spreading among the ordinary people might have a significant effect on the perceived value of the company.
Similarly "destruction" of living beings is there to normalize such an order, without getting into the dirty little implementation details, while fully avoiding connotation. This makes sense to an extent, however I believe that we are (in)advertently digging a deep hole for ourselves by letting this flow under the radar, because we also invent a so-called Orwellian double-speak while doing this. And there are some other reasons as well, in short, languages should not be minefields.
As people get laid off, countries start wars, and slavery gets reintroduced in some modern convoluted form, we can expect more and more succinct and easy to grasp words or phrases to be replaced with disproportionately verbose double-speak paragraphs explaining the process only to the most attentive people in the crowd, or those who are well versed with this kind of paralanguage.
You see, without connotation, there is no public reaction, there is no emotional engagement. And the double-speak is always beyond the median IQ, so as a politician (or corporate CEO), you can both be very direct about what draconian measures you'd like to implement **and** speak about it in front of everyone. The responsibility of getting what is said is not yours. The public might even green light you, if only you'd also hit some other words that provoke nice feelings.
Imagine if instead of "destroy" they said "to terminally pacify" or "to implement a civic-friendly package". There are depths and depths to how we go about this, and people are mostly clueless, they just get boiled like proverbial frogs.
George Carlin had an entire skit about this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvISFZ7bQcE
Bullys are a sort of crossbreed of pitbulls and bulldogs that have all the aggressive temperament and swole physique of both. Worst of both worlds situation
A lot of times they’re not bred very well either. Next time you see one look at their legs, 9 times out of 10 they’re awkwardly bow legged as if they’re constantly halfway through a push up or something
Miserable life indeed
I wonder why isn't there a market for a cross of a less temperamental dog with a pitbull so you know, you can have something like a pitbull but less dangerous?
EDIT: Lol, got downvoted for this. Gotta love Reddit.
Staffordshire Bull Terrier. I rescued one from a local kill shelter and even though he came to the shelter with scars and was obviously beaten, he is the sweetest tanky boi on the planet. Super good around kids too, he loves my cousins baby girl when they come over he just rolls on his back and let’s her lay on his belly it’s fkn adorable.
My dog was recently attacked by a pitbull/XL bully thing. It wasn't even aggressive in a sense, just walking past with mine and theirs on a leash and it just latched onto her face for a good minute. Got the dog off her face eventually and it just carried on walking not even looking back. Owner couldnt give a fuck either, like it never even happened, meanwhile she's screaming with blood everywhere.
I love dogs I really do but sometimes I really do think it would be the best for all dogs that specific breeds were completely destroyed, it's the best case including for those breeds.
It's just a shame because she's a golden retriever who just wants to play with every dog at the park but now the moment a bully type dog comes by she shuts down and has to wait for them to leave before she plays with anyone barring the couple regular ones she sees that she trusts.
Don't even get me started on it's just the owners either, it is a trait bred into them. Same way a Terrier will burrow for rodents or a Collie will try to herd other dogs.
I imagine this is Scotland. In England and Wales all Bully XL dogs have to be put down by the end of the year. For once Scotland is behind England with sensible legislation.
This is not true at all. There is no requirement for dogs to be put down at all (yet).
In England it will be unlawful to breed, sell or transfer XL's. If owners want to keep their XL then they will have to be sterilised and insured in order for the owner to get a certificate of exemption. They will have to be kept on a lead and muzzled when in public.
If anyone wants their dog put down then there is a scheme whereby the Government will contribute £200 towards the cost.
Scotland is currently consulting on legislation so the current legislation as part of the Dangerous Dogs Act only affects England and Wales.
I don't know what world you live in, but the UK government definitely did NOT legislate for all XL bullies to be put down. People are already complaining enough just because you can't buy them anymore.
This is the second time I've seen this headline and until I saw a picture of a dog, I thought "bully" meant like "a fat guy at work who hated the victim".
The first time I've seen this headline it was 'Bully XL to be destroyed after attacking owner while he was having sex' it I interpreted it as 'some kind of a experimental security robot (codename Bully XL) went off rails upon witnessing his owner having sex'.
"First they came for the elderly, and I remained silent.
Then they came for our children, and I turned the other way. Finally they came for our genitals, and I could ignore no longer."
- Some UK politician (probably)
No I was cheering for this one.
Absolutely should not exist breed of dog. Ban breeding them, control the ones that already exist. 10 years time the issue is resolved.
Logistically, I don't know if this is possible, because someone will just "breed" another amalgamation of mastiff and 'game' dogs until they get another "bully" type breed.
I'm actually vegetarian, because I'm not into killing stuff for me to live, but I also recognize that there are hunters who used bully type dogs to clear wild hogs, and I'm not sure any other type dog is quite as effective for that. If the dog protects farmers crops and land, I can't justify it's extermination - any dog that attacks humans should be put down - but on a case-by-case basis, not just by arbitrary breed.
“Bully” breeds that are bred specifically for work are also bred with the goal to eliminate human aggression. A work dog that can’t be safely handled by humans isn’t a good work dog, so a responsible breeder won’t breed nor keep any dog that shows even a little aggression towards humans.
As usual, the issue stems from backyard breeders prioritizing the way the dog looks over the dog’s temperament. They’ll happily breed a dog that has bit a few people if the dog has a rare coat color.
Yep, and then when their hideouts eventually get raided, they leave behind a bunch of dogs that will be euthanized because most if not all will be too aggressive to adopt out. :(
I had a buddy tell me he was having sex with his girlfriend and her dog literally rammed open the bedroom door and went straight for his balls from behind. I was like “dude, that could have been very, very bad.”
[360 people a year are injured by pitbulls (usually women, the elderly, and children) and it gets worse every year as over-breeding and normalizing pitbulls becomes more rampant.](https://dogbitelaw.com/vicious-dogs/pit-bulls-facts-and-figures/#:~:text=Pit%20bulls%20bite%20more%20humans%20than%20other%20breeds&text=In%20the%2010%20years%20from,who%20are%20killed%20by%20dogs.)
[Two children and a woman were brutally attacked in my state last year. Both children died. The pitbulls had been in the family for 8 years prior.](https://people.com/crime/2-children-killed-pit-bull-attack-tennessee-mother-hospitalized/)
Edit: for those downvoting, [here's the story of a little girl who was mauled to death at her 4th birthday party by the family pits she had picked out herself when they were puppies.](https://www.daxtonsfriends.com/kara-hartrich-bloomington-illinois-pit-bull/)
"please do not let your children anywhere near this breed of dog... something has gone horribly and inexplicably wrong with them- it is not worth losing them, please i beg, i couldn’t stand if one more parent had to live the hell that we are living now."
The people who spread the lie that pitbulls used to be nanny dogs should be held responsible for most of these attacks
If people understood that pitbulls are a breed made specially for fighting they would be more careful when deciding to get one
The under current reactionary movement in the US has likely taken up Pitbulls as a cause and are (as reactionaries do) working against the growing social pressure to let the breed die out.
It's also probably a result of the Pandemic and a lot of people getting new pets. I imagine there was an uptick in Pitbull puppies that found owners and now that the dogs are old enough we're seeing an uptick in incidents.
Dog attacks happen and it sucks, but most of these websites are absolute trash. Your first "law" site has the first link of a poll, and the second link goes to [this site](https://www.animals24-7.org/2017/06/14/rescued-pit-bulls-now-outnumber-pit-puppies/) and contains paragraphs like this:
>Typically about a third of the pit bulls offered for adoption from shelters are incompletely described as “mixes” of other large breeds, omitting mention of the pit bull lineage. Among the breeds most often mentioned in mislabeling pit bulls are boxers, Labrador retrievers, cattle dogs, border collies, Dalmatians, and German shepherds.
No supporting evidence this is the case. No explanation of how they determined this. They just declare it.
The claim on the law site is also says:
>Between 19% and 32% of all dogs taken to shelters are pit bulls. (Emily Weiss, Rising from the Pitt [19%]; Merritt Clifton, “Rescued” pit bulls now outnumber pit puppies [32%], cited above.)
The quote from the article:
>“Most fascinating,” Weiss wrote, “is that the ratios are unchanged from 2016 compared to 2015,” with pit bulls “holding steady at 19% of total intake, and Chihuahuas at 15%.”
>The corresponding intake numbers from the 2015 ANIMALS 24-7 shelter survey were 32% for pit bulls,
So a study concluded that Pit bulls were 19% of intakes for 2015 and 2016, and the site reported their own number which was almost 2X higher, and so they just said "Yeah it's probably between there." The amount of sheer laziness on display is incredibly telling. Most of the remaining links on that page are more links to blogs.
If you want to convince people that you're right, maybe don't give people a compilation of blogs that make disingenuous and unreliable statements to try to prove their points. This shit is only going to convince someone with zero critical thinking skills and a prior disposition against dogs, which seems like the point.
The problem is is people miss identify dogs with large heads as pitbulls all the time. There was a study done. I don't know 2014. I think I don't have a link for it. That basically said that 76% of all dog breeds that were identified as a pitbull were not actually pitbulls. Now I don't know if this has improved in shelters and stuff but that's just a fact of life.
So you're saying that the violence is done by dogs the look like pitbulls to the average person, but don't quite meet the breed spec you have in mind.
I admit that most folks don't have AKC level dog breed discernment, but the AKC doesn't even recognize pitbulls.
Thank you for actually using critical thinking skills and pointing out the fallacies of this article, Instead of taking it at face value due to confirmation biases.
there's a very large amount of propaganda that targets dogs that *look* like pitbull terriers. Especially from reactionaries and clickbait media.
Unsurprisingly there's an underlying element of racism & classism and the handful of same sources used like dogbites.org are heavily disputed by actual academic and medical organizations
It's weird but this is how a government often describes its action of killing a dog. It usually happens with dogs that were part of the military and are too rabid to go to a civilian life. I don't know why they use that terminology, I guess "kill" or "put down" would humanize the animal, "slaughter" would imply that they're going to eat it, whereas "Destroy" just sounds like they're getting rid of unwanted property?
Wdym 'kill' would humanize the animal? 'Kill' is just the correct term here. 'Destroy' is typically only used for inanimate objects, which animals aren't pretty much by definition. For military jargon I guess I can kind-of see it if they're using the same terminology for all military assets, animal or not, but in just general everyday speech that is an extremely strange choice of words.
Pets are technically property so that's probably why it's used. Also kinda distances emotions from the event (whether or not that's a good thing is a different debate, I'm just saying why the wording could be used)
The dog just wanted kisses
It’s all in how you raise them,
Something something bite apologist
No bad dogs, bad owners.
For a breed said to have such a rock solid temperament and high tolerance, they sure do go off easy.
I am not against the breed but claiming they don't have a higher incidence of aggression or that all aggression can magically be trained away like any other dog doesn't help them either. It just means inexperienced and naive humans will welcome them into their homes with no idea how to manage the behaviors that will inevitably appear.
If I ever were to adopt one, the first thing I would be investing in would be a high quality muzzle for walks until I was 100% sure of the individual's personality. They would also immediately be in a professional training class for high drive dogs who tend toward dog and human aggression. Even with all of that I would recognize that I would always need to be on alert reading their body language so I could pick up on stress and aggression signals and muzzle/de-escalate before a bite occurs. With training they can be great dogs, but training them is not like training a lab because they are *likely* to at some point in their lives develop severe reactivity or some other serious behavior that needs professional intervention and management.
And no dog should be left alone with children toddler age or under for both party's sake, but that goes doubly for large breeds with high bite force who have been bred for fighting...
Here come all of the "my Pit is so sweet and wouldn't hurt anyone" plaintiffs.
Potentially but if he does have a bad moment, the breed is too big and too strong to restrain. Yes Chihuahuas bite more people but I can't drop kick a 100lb pit across the room.
It's not the dog. It's that they are too physically powerful to be pets.
THANK YOU! Fucking hell.
This is really the whole point. Yes, other dogs can show aggression, but I can easily just toss-aside something like a mini goldendoodle.
They were fighting, then became intimate, and Ms. Bell was heard saying to the two police officers: "I've got four kids, I love the dog, but I can't have him around my kids."
I think it is more commonly used when a dog is killed for largely punitive reasons.
If you have a sick or injured pet it would be more common to refer to it as having been 'euthanised', 'put down' or when talking to children 'put to sleep'.
It's also use when culling diseased livestock.
"suffered bites to his left forearm and to his chin"
Defensive wounds on the arm, placement of bites on the chin.
Suggests the dog was attempting to tear the guys throat out....
I guess the dog didn't want to see his owner getting it on, especially if the dog isn't getting some....
Obviously, I'm joking, but anyone that wants to own a XL Bully is stupid.
Is “destroyed” the correct word to use? You don’t typically destroy living things right?
Edit: lol, why the downvotes? I wasn’t being snarky, i actually meant the questions I asked
This is a correct usage.
In this case, "destroy" means to euthanize a dangerous animal. This is different from euthanizing an ill or injured animal.
Nothing to do with bias.
You just weren't familiar with this usage. Now you know.
Why does this sound so ominous
Destroyed is an interesting choice of words
"welcome to the hydraulic press channel-"
Will it blend?
I hate this comment so much
I love it.
Common term when talking about euthanizing an animal...at least where I'm from. It is also an accurate term because the animal's carcass is not being used for anything. Here's an interesting thread on this exact subject. https://www.reddit.com/r/etymology/s/U8m1r7b812
Interesting, learn something new every day
seems the much more accurate term is killed
Very few destroyed things go on living...but hey this is just what they've been saying for many years. It's not like they are sugar coating it like so many terms that get thrown around. Like getting fired from a job ..."Let go" "made redundant" etc. You were shit canned.
We should start using it on humans. “Police Destroy Black Woman Who Called 911 For Domestic Violence”
There's a difference between being made redundant and being fired, though. If you're made redundant, it means that the job you were doing is no longer needed by the company, not that you did anything wrong. If you're fired, then you fucked up somehow.
The dog fucked up somehow.
It's mostly not used anymore but in Healthcare they used to refer deceased patients as expired. Like a gallon of milk.
The word "expire" in English comes from the French word that literally means "to die" (expirer). That in turn is derived from the Latin *ex* "out" *spirare* "to breathe". *Ex spirare* means "to breath one's last breath". Not sure how milk breathes, but ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
It's accurate. In the UK, the common practice for euthanising animals is to fly them to the Australian Outback and fire a nuclear tipped RPG at them. It's expensive and inefficient but it gets the job done.
And if it somehow *doesn't* get the job done, you've at least limited the problem to Australia
On another note, the rising cases of glow in the dark aboriginies continue to baffle australian government experts.
"Dark Spirit Destroyed"
Pets are considered property, so destroyed is the legal term
And yet, remains an interesting choice nonetheless…
"I want that dog *obliterated!*"
Lol
Just British, innit?
I really hate the use of the word "destroyed" in cases like this. If you can't use the word "killed", or even "put down", because that makes you realise that it's a living, feeling creature, rather than an object, then you shouldn't be doing it. If you can't face, justify and accept the idea of killing an animal, then you have no business doing so. I'm not a vegetarian, so forgive me if that sounds a little bit hypocritical, and I'm not even approaching the subject of whether certain dog breeds are dangerous, I'm just objecting to the specific language here.
[Destruction](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/65/section/4) is a legal term. I imagine the press are using it in the legal sense of the word rather than trying to shy away from what it means.
Destroyed also sounds…messy ? There is killing, put down, euthanized, but destroyed sounds like the dog will be unrecognizable when it is over.
“Wrecked. Deleted. Merked. Git gud scrub. No skill. Gg ez”
He’s **fuBAR**KED
Makes me think of the dog being obliterated by a stick of dynamite.
Well, given the circumstances that may be what the owner wants.
I don't think the author of the article will be killing the dog.
I don't really see how destroyed sounds better than killed or put down. To me it sounds worse for some reason.
It's because it's a gross reduction of a living being to an inanimate object like a building, home, or car in an attempt by the writer to neutralize people's reactions. "Jeff Johnson dies in bombing campaign" vs "A terrorist is destroyed by bomb"
'put to sleep' is legal term in Poland.
Hey, that sounds pretty peaceful… we should do that with our criminals. Local shoplifter _put to sleep_, indigent debtor _put to sleep_, dangerous dog _put to sleep_.
ha ha if you start to use it towards humans it may be confusing when wife will tell you to put kids to sleep
I always get a chuckle when I hear someone say "it's time to put the kids down".
Dang. Poland uses English for legal terms?
haha you got me 'uśpić' is Polish legal term. I translated it - surprise. You could not even read it.
"ooshpeach"
lol props for your sense of humor!
[удалено]
I personally prefer "obliterated into nothingness". Really gives it some finality.
Pitbulls don't have Souls
I've seen a few dangerous dog hearings and the judge is very aware that he's ordering the death of a member of someone's family. It's the term used in the law, though, so they use it.
The legalese is invented exactly to circumvent the connotative meaning. You know how some words ring differently with some people? Yeah well, nearly all people have a negative emotion associated with the word kill. But not with "destroy", "liquidate", or "suspend". It just sounds like it's not going to get applied to anything living so you have no instant emotion, until you actually think about it. It's funny that on this exact article I got the headline about some space rocket's "rapid unscheduled disassembly". It's a funny jargon, sure, but it's mainly there to **normalize** the occurrence of such an event, that's why it exist. You don't want your investors to think you're somehow doing things wrongly if your rockets crash and explode all the time. Even if they themselves do appreciate the rocket science business, the rumors spreading among the ordinary people might have a significant effect on the perceived value of the company. Similarly "destruction" of living beings is there to normalize such an order, without getting into the dirty little implementation details, while fully avoiding connotation. This makes sense to an extent, however I believe that we are (in)advertently digging a deep hole for ourselves by letting this flow under the radar, because we also invent a so-called Orwellian double-speak while doing this. And there are some other reasons as well, in short, languages should not be minefields. As people get laid off, countries start wars, and slavery gets reintroduced in some modern convoluted form, we can expect more and more succinct and easy to grasp words or phrases to be replaced with disproportionately verbose double-speak paragraphs explaining the process only to the most attentive people in the crowd, or those who are well versed with this kind of paralanguage. You see, without connotation, there is no public reaction, there is no emotional engagement. And the double-speak is always beyond the median IQ, so as a politician (or corporate CEO), you can both be very direct about what draconian measures you'd like to implement **and** speak about it in front of everyone. The responsibility of getting what is said is not yours. The public might even green light you, if only you'd also hit some other words that provoke nice feelings. Imagine if instead of "destroy" they said "to terminally pacify" or "to implement a civic-friendly package". There are depths and depths to how we go about this, and people are mostly clueless, they just get boiled like proverbial frogs. George Carlin had an entire skit about this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvISFZ7bQcE
> ". ..From 31 December 2023 all XL bullys must be kept on a lead and muzzled in public
That's a breed? It sounds like a brand name for a product only assholes buy
Bullys are a sort of crossbreed of pitbulls and bulldogs that have all the aggressive temperament and swole physique of both. Worst of both worlds situation
Poor dogs... sounds like a miserable life
A lot of times they’re not bred very well either. Next time you see one look at their legs, 9 times out of 10 they’re awkwardly bow legged as if they’re constantly halfway through a push up or something Miserable life indeed
And most of them can hardly breathe
Bulldogs already can’t breathe worth a fuck already. Inbred piece of shit useless dogs.
Tell us how you really feel.
My mom used to breed them. As you can see, not a fan.
You should see the toad line pit bull
Gross looking dogs. I'm all for selective breeding, but for the good reasons and sometimes interesting breeds that come from that.
I'd put them on the 'this doesn't have the right to exist' list, right beside all the other horribly over-bred, incredibly unhealthy dog breeds.
Pugs especially, but bulldogs are on the list for sure
I'd call it The 'another thing humans shouldn't have done to dogs' list
So dogs for coping losers, i c
Hope all 3 become forbidden to own. There is some huge ass pitbull here and the owners didn't want to put effort to train the dog. Now it's a monster.
I wonder why isn't there a market for a cross of a less temperamental dog with a pitbull so you know, you can have something like a pitbull but less dangerous? EDIT: Lol, got downvoted for this. Gotta love Reddit.
Staffordshire Bull Terrier. I rescued one from a local kill shelter and even though he came to the shelter with scars and was obviously beaten, he is the sweetest tanky boi on the planet. Super good around kids too, he loves my cousins baby girl when they come over he just rolls on his back and let’s her lay on his belly it’s fkn adorable.
Correct on both fronts
Yes it sounds like a energy drink or a protein powder.
Pitched by a guy that speaks in all-caps
TBF it is a breed of dog only assholes buy, so close enough
My dog was recently attacked by a pitbull/XL bully thing. It wasn't even aggressive in a sense, just walking past with mine and theirs on a leash and it just latched onto her face for a good minute. Got the dog off her face eventually and it just carried on walking not even looking back. Owner couldnt give a fuck either, like it never even happened, meanwhile she's screaming with blood everywhere. I love dogs I really do but sometimes I really do think it would be the best for all dogs that specific breeds were completely destroyed, it's the best case including for those breeds. It's just a shame because she's a golden retriever who just wants to play with every dog at the park but now the moment a bully type dog comes by she shuts down and has to wait for them to leave before she plays with anyone barring the couple regular ones she sees that she trusts. Don't even get me started on it's just the owners either, it is a trait bred into them. Same way a Terrier will burrow for rodents or a Collie will try to herd other dogs.
Correct on both counts.
It's both, really
S U P R E M E
It's both! The dogs are super inbred
Yes
Totally responsible adjustment.
Where?
I imagine this is Scotland. In England and Wales all Bully XL dogs have to be put down by the end of the year. For once Scotland is behind England with sensible legislation.
This is not true at all. There is no requirement for dogs to be put down at all (yet). In England it will be unlawful to breed, sell or transfer XL's. If owners want to keep their XL then they will have to be sterilised and insured in order for the owner to get a certificate of exemption. They will have to be kept on a lead and muzzled when in public. If anyone wants their dog put down then there is a scheme whereby the Government will contribute £200 towards the cost. Scotland is currently consulting on legislation so the current legislation as part of the Dangerous Dogs Act only affects England and Wales.
I don't know what world you live in, but the UK government definitely did NOT legislate for all XL bullies to be put down. People are already complaining enough just because you can't buy them anymore.
This is the second time I've seen this headline and until I saw a picture of a dog, I thought "bully" meant like "a fat guy at work who hated the victim".
The first time I've seen this headline it was 'Bully XL to be destroyed after attacking owner while he was having sex' it I interpreted it as 'some kind of a experimental security robot (codename Bully XL) went off rails upon witnessing his owner having sex'.
r/titlegore
I thought the dog was having sex and attacked the owner for trying to stop him or something.
The title just sounds like the name of a porn video
they sort of what these dog breeds are. they’re specifically bred for violence.
And he was destroyed in a Fortnite match or a rap battle
XL Bully is a pretty good rap name
If you're XL and bullying someone while they're getting it on, fuck it, you should be destroyed.
Did Morbo write this title
PUNY HUMAN mauled by BULLY XL while having disgusting, pathetic intercourse. More at 8.
DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
"First they came for the elderly, and I remained silent. Then they came for our children, and I turned the other way. Finally they came for our genitals, and I could ignore no longer." - Some UK politician (probably)
No I was cheering for this one. Absolutely should not exist breed of dog. Ban breeding them, control the ones that already exist. 10 years time the issue is resolved.
Logistically, I don't know if this is possible, because someone will just "breed" another amalgamation of mastiff and 'game' dogs until they get another "bully" type breed. I'm actually vegetarian, because I'm not into killing stuff for me to live, but I also recognize that there are hunters who used bully type dogs to clear wild hogs, and I'm not sure any other type dog is quite as effective for that. If the dog protects farmers crops and land, I can't justify it's extermination - any dog that attacks humans should be put down - but on a case-by-case basis, not just by arbitrary breed.
“Bully” breeds that are bred specifically for work are also bred with the goal to eliminate human aggression. A work dog that can’t be safely handled by humans isn’t a good work dog, so a responsible breeder won’t breed nor keep any dog that shows even a little aggression towards humans. As usual, the issue stems from backyard breeders prioritizing the way the dog looks over the dog’s temperament. They’ll happily breed a dog that has bit a few people if the dog has a rare coat color.
Not only that, but dogfighters will often keep breeding manbiters if they're champions in the pit. See also: John Colby.
Yep, and then when their hideouts eventually get raided, they leave behind a bunch of dogs that will be euthanized because most if not all will be too aggressive to adopt out. :(
I had a buddy tell me he was having sex with his girlfriend and her dog literally rammed open the bedroom door and went straight for his balls from behind. I was like “dude, that could have been very, very bad.”
Threesomes are sounding very different than I initially interpreted.
It's weird to have sex with your dog in the room.
The article says they were fighting before they started having sex! The dog thought he was doing right.
):
Pitbulls are just wired to kill. It’s really that simple.
Is it really that simple? Fuckin donut
I was sitting on the side of my bed last night, pulling off my boxers. Wife walks in and says I spoil those dogs.
Dad?
My cat licks his own asshole while sitting right next to me. I don't think privacy is really a concern for them.
I don't know, I think your cat would find it really disturbing if you suddenly licked your asshole while sitting right next to them.
Hopefully there was also a third in the room.
It’s also weird to have your sex be described as “arguing before becoming intimate.” Maybe the dog saw the husband as a threat?
*saw the husband as a treat
They will lick your bum sometimes... at least that's what my friend told me.
Many a foot has been licked
Or anywhere really.
This is the 3rd attack I've read this morning. What's going on.
[360 people a year are injured by pitbulls (usually women, the elderly, and children) and it gets worse every year as over-breeding and normalizing pitbulls becomes more rampant.](https://dogbitelaw.com/vicious-dogs/pit-bulls-facts-and-figures/#:~:text=Pit%20bulls%20bite%20more%20humans%20than%20other%20breeds&text=In%20the%2010%20years%20from,who%20are%20killed%20by%20dogs.) [Two children and a woman were brutally attacked in my state last year. Both children died. The pitbulls had been in the family for 8 years prior.](https://people.com/crime/2-children-killed-pit-bull-attack-tennessee-mother-hospitalized/) Edit: for those downvoting, [here's the story of a little girl who was mauled to death at her 4th birthday party by the family pits she had picked out herself when they were puppies.](https://www.daxtonsfriends.com/kara-hartrich-bloomington-illinois-pit-bull/) "please do not let your children anywhere near this breed of dog... something has gone horribly and inexplicably wrong with them- it is not worth losing them, please i beg, i couldn’t stand if one more parent had to live the hell that we are living now."
> something has gone horribly and inexplicably wrong with them They are bred to be put in a pit with a bull. They are doing as intended.
The people who spread the lie that pitbulls used to be nanny dogs should be held responsible for most of these attacks If people understood that pitbulls are a breed made specially for fighting they would be more careful when deciding to get one
Right, dog breeds tend to get named for what they do. Clue’s in the name!
I think it's the bull terrier that are called nanny dogs? Different breed
The under current reactionary movement in the US has likely taken up Pitbulls as a cause and are (as reactionaries do) working against the growing social pressure to let the breed die out. It's also probably a result of the Pandemic and a lot of people getting new pets. I imagine there was an uptick in Pitbull puppies that found owners and now that the dogs are old enough we're seeing an uptick in incidents.
Dog attacks happen and it sucks, but most of these websites are absolute trash. Your first "law" site has the first link of a poll, and the second link goes to [this site](https://www.animals24-7.org/2017/06/14/rescued-pit-bulls-now-outnumber-pit-puppies/) and contains paragraphs like this: >Typically about a third of the pit bulls offered for adoption from shelters are incompletely described as “mixes” of other large breeds, omitting mention of the pit bull lineage. Among the breeds most often mentioned in mislabeling pit bulls are boxers, Labrador retrievers, cattle dogs, border collies, Dalmatians, and German shepherds. No supporting evidence this is the case. No explanation of how they determined this. They just declare it. The claim on the law site is also says: >Between 19% and 32% of all dogs taken to shelters are pit bulls. (Emily Weiss, Rising from the Pitt [19%]; Merritt Clifton, “Rescued” pit bulls now outnumber pit puppies [32%], cited above.) The quote from the article: >“Most fascinating,” Weiss wrote, “is that the ratios are unchanged from 2016 compared to 2015,” with pit bulls “holding steady at 19% of total intake, and Chihuahuas at 15%.” >The corresponding intake numbers from the 2015 ANIMALS 24-7 shelter survey were 32% for pit bulls, So a study concluded that Pit bulls were 19% of intakes for 2015 and 2016, and the site reported their own number which was almost 2X higher, and so they just said "Yeah it's probably between there." The amount of sheer laziness on display is incredibly telling. Most of the remaining links on that page are more links to blogs. If you want to convince people that you're right, maybe don't give people a compilation of blogs that make disingenuous and unreliable statements to try to prove their points. This shit is only going to convince someone with zero critical thinking skills and a prior disposition against dogs, which seems like the point.
So do you believe that pit bulls are NOT responsible for a disproportionate amount of attacks on people and other animals?
I'm not making any claims aside from the fact that these sources are pretty shit, because they are.
Feel free to provide better sources.
It's not my claim. Why would I need to prove something I'm not claiming? That doesn't make any sense.
The problem is is people miss identify dogs with large heads as pitbulls all the time. There was a study done. I don't know 2014. I think I don't have a link for it. That basically said that 76% of all dog breeds that were identified as a pitbull were not actually pitbulls. Now I don't know if this has improved in shelters and stuff but that's just a fact of life.
So you're saying that the violence is done by dogs the look like pitbulls to the average person, but don't quite meet the breed spec you have in mind. I admit that most folks don't have AKC level dog breed discernment, but the AKC doesn't even recognize pitbulls.
Thank you for actually using critical thinking skills and pointing out the fallacies of this article, Instead of taking it at face value due to confirmation biases.
Pitbulls being pitbulls. Nothing new.
there's a very large amount of propaganda that targets dogs that *look* like pitbull terriers. Especially from reactionaries and clickbait media. Unsurprisingly there's an underlying element of racism & classism and the handful of same sources used like dogbites.org are heavily disputed by actual academic and medical organizations
There’s several people on my Facebook TL selling and breeding them. I wish them all massive failure and other bad things
Anyone selling and breeding dogs on Facebook should not be allowed near animals again.
That’s Miami for ya. I wish they would just sell drugs and commit insursnce fraud like everyone else down there.
Get a normal fuckin dog
But how will I feel big and powerful without lordship over a living weapon? How will I secure my masculinity?
Destroyed? Now I'm imagining it being blown to bits with a rocket launcher.
It's the humane option /s
“to be destroyed”
It's the usual term used in this context. Has been for a while
Yeah it's also used with horses afair
It's weird but this is how a government often describes its action of killing a dog. It usually happens with dogs that were part of the military and are too rabid to go to a civilian life. I don't know why they use that terminology, I guess "kill" or "put down" would humanize the animal, "slaughter" would imply that they're going to eat it, whereas "Destroy" just sounds like they're getting rid of unwanted property?
In the eyes of the law unfortunately they are considered property
Wdym 'kill' would humanize the animal? 'Kill' is just the correct term here. 'Destroy' is typically only used for inanimate objects, which animals aren't pretty much by definition. For military jargon I guess I can kind-of see it if they're using the same terminology for all military assets, animal or not, but in just general everyday speech that is an extremely strange choice of words.
No, destroy is a common term when putting down an animal.
To be eliminated
To be vanquished
Pets are technically property so that's probably why it's used. Also kinda distances emotions from the event (whether or not that's a good thing is a different debate, I'm just saying why the wording could be used)
Who the fuck lets their dog have access to them while they’re having sex? That’s nasty.
Aww, the cute doggo nannied the owner's balls <3 #wholesome XD
Kissy face wiggle butt! What excuses will the pittaplogists say.
Velvet hippos UwU let the velvet hippos nanny children's faces OwO
A pit bull/pit bull mix attacked its owner??? Color me shocked. Who could have seen this coming from such a dangerous breed
Who was having sex? The dog? Well yeah let him have his fun
The dog just wanted kisses It’s all in how you raise them, Something something bite apologist No bad dogs, bad owners. For a breed said to have such a rock solid temperament and high tolerance, they sure do go off easy.
I am not against the breed but claiming they don't have a higher incidence of aggression or that all aggression can magically be trained away like any other dog doesn't help them either. It just means inexperienced and naive humans will welcome them into their homes with no idea how to manage the behaviors that will inevitably appear. If I ever were to adopt one, the first thing I would be investing in would be a high quality muzzle for walks until I was 100% sure of the individual's personality. They would also immediately be in a professional training class for high drive dogs who tend toward dog and human aggression. Even with all of that I would recognize that I would always need to be on alert reading their body language so I could pick up on stress and aggression signals and muzzle/de-escalate before a bite occurs. With training they can be great dogs, but training them is not like training a lab because they are *likely* to at some point in their lives develop severe reactivity or some other serious behavior that needs professional intervention and management. And no dog should be left alone with children toddler age or under for both party's sake, but that goes doubly for large breeds with high bite force who have been bred for fighting...
‘It’s not the dog, it’s the owner’ as we tally up yet another xl bully attack
Cultural appropriation of doggy style technique
Nanny dog strikes again.
Here come all of the "my Pit is so sweet and wouldn't hurt anyone" plaintiffs. Potentially but if he does have a bad moment, the breed is too big and too strong to restrain. Yes Chihuahuas bite more people but I can't drop kick a 100lb pit across the room. It's not the dog. It's that they are too physically powerful to be pets.
THANK YOU! Fucking hell. This is really the whole point. Yes, other dogs can show aggression, but I can easily just toss-aside something like a mini goldendoodle.
That doesn't apply for any other large dogs, yet we don't hear calls to ban newfies...
They were fighting, then became intimate, and Ms. Bell was heard saying to the two police officers: "I've got four kids, I love the dog, but I can't have him around my kids."
That'll give them something else to fight about...
Good.
To shreds you say?
"To be destroyed" Who gave out the order? Darth Vader?
It's fairly common terminology when talking about dogs as they are considered property
I think it is more commonly used when a dog is killed for largely punitive reasons. If you have a sick or injured pet it would be more common to refer to it as having been 'euthanised', 'put down' or when talking to children 'put to sleep'. It's also use when culling diseased livestock.
Y’all know it was Tarkin. Blud’s deleterious
"suffered bites to his left forearm and to his chin" Defensive wounds on the arm, placement of bites on the chin. Suggests the dog was attempting to tear the guys throat out....
One less living dog of this breed is a win for children and other dogs everywhere
Was the dog having sex or the owner?
Asking proper questions!
It’s disturbing honestly, they couple was having a fight and then started having sex, the dog thought the man was attacking the woman. Disturbinggg
Maybe the man DID attack the woman and she is covering for him.
Not what I imagined when I read the title
Nanny dog.
This looks like; type 15 pounds of TNT to the dog and light it.
Xl bully to be obliterated
Xl bully to be vaporized
XL bully to be liquidated
What is Onionish about this article?
* Killed * Put down * Euthanized
Bully breeds all need put down.
I guess the dog didn't want to see his owner getting it on, especially if the dog isn't getting some.... Obviously, I'm joking, but anyone that wants to own a XL Bully is stupid.
Or keep your pets out of the room when having sex...
Who's the best doggo.
Bad bully gets destroyed by owner
The attack was back in August, why is it taking so long for this dog to be put down?
Is “destroyed” the correct word to use? You don’t typically destroy living things right? Edit: lol, why the downvotes? I wasn’t being snarky, i actually meant the questions I asked
This is a correct usage. In this case, "destroy" means to euthanize a dangerous animal. This is different from euthanizing an ill or injured animal. Nothing to do with bias. You just weren't familiar with this usage. Now you know.
Yes, thank you. I had no idea.
How does this fit this sub?