DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**legal-advicer** · 02-22-2010, 03:14 AM

In some situations it may apply but not always, but to blame thugs as the problem to me is kind of idiotic because their dogs arnt the ones attacking people on the street or whose dog attacked a child.

I greatly disagree with this. Where I am from thier dogs ARE the ones who attack and maul people. The overwhelming majority of fatal dog attacks involving pitbulls in the state of Massachusetts can be found in Roxbury, Dorchester, Springfeild, Lawrence, Lynn & Lowell. All of which are highly populated with blacks & hispanics. You cannot swing a dead cat by its tail ( in those towns mentioned )without hitting a young black or hispanic male who owns a pitbull. They are a very commonly owned breed in urban area's. Even in my town, all the serious complaints of pitbull activity comes from a more colorful rich parts of town. My sister is ACO and all but a few incidents of dogfighting and dog biting..loose dogs...etc etc etc hale from those parts of the city. So I do disagree about who's dogs are doing what to who.

As for the dogs in general getting a bad rap...sure I agree that alot of incidents involve clueless white folks, however I would venture to guess that the majority of those are more accidental due to ignorance than to be more of deliberate actions of the urban pitbull owning population. You may disagree with what I type however, Ive been around a long time and have seen and experienced all of what I say through my own eyes to know it be true.

---------- Post added at 09:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 PM ----------

Strange, maybe it's the area I'm from (SoCal, so plenty of black people here too) but the pitbull stigma is less about "black people" and more about "thugs" (which in these parts usually means black, brown and yellow). I also realize that in many other parts of the US, white guys will also fit that stigma. So I actually think it's less about the color of the people and rather the local flavor, if that makes sense.

But if we are simply wondering why the non-pitbull crowd might associate pitbulls with "thugs", why not look at the following things:

1. Why are most pitbull sites embedded with Olde English font? Haven't really noticed the local knitting club crocheting "Ole E" letters in their latest caps. I can tell you of one place that LOVES Olde E: prison.
2. Why are plenty of pitbull sites pumping hip hop and rap? No, HH and rap are NOT thuggish in and of themselves, but there seems to be a theme...
3. What's with the names of Gotti, Capone, Noriega, and all thug, criminal, dictator related monikers? Is it for a greater appreciation of world history?
4. Why are pits the only dogs portrayed in music videos as chained, human eating animals? I can name at least three rappers whose videos perpetuate the dog fighting look. Can't name a single country, R&B and slow jam singer whose video does the same.
5. Generally speaking, there's an irony from the "non-thuggish" crowd that continues to dress, speak, act and carry on like thugs whilst proclaiming "We're not thugs. But eff you if you think that". The old saying of looking, walking and quacking like a duck probably applies here...

Now, none of these things by themselves are "thugs", but honestly which of these things are NOT associated with "thugs"? The guy who shaves his head, grows a goatee, wears extra large pants, sags, wears white Cortez sneakers, uses a military belt, has sleeve tats, drives a lowered ride with dubs, mugs when taking pics, squats when taking pics, is liberal about weed smoking, can talk about the last 7 fights he's been in, did not go to college, doesn't hold a steady job, etc. Again, none of these things in and of themselves is "thuggish" but are people really supposed to believe these individuals are NOT trying to perpetuate the thuggish image. Puhlease.

Btw, please note that these descriptions don't necessarily apply to one race--we have plenty of black, white, brown and yellow sub groups that follow all of these things.

It's merely an attempt to explain WHY pits and thugs are almost always associated together.

Bravo !

Well said.

02-22-2010, 03:14 AM	#23
legal-advicer Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 615 Senior Member	In some situations it may apply but not always, but to blame thugs as the problem to me is kind of idiotic because their dogs arnt the ones attacking people on the street or whose dog attacked a child. I greatly disagree with this. Where I am from thier dogs ARE the ones who attack and maul people. The overwhelming majority of fatal dog attacks involving pitbulls in the state of Massachusetts can be found in Roxbury, Dorchester, Springfeild, Lawrence, Lynn & Lowell. All of which are highly populated with blacks & hispanics. You cannot swing a dead cat by its tail ( in those towns mentioned )without hitting a young black or hispanic male who owns a pitbull. They are a very commonly owned breed in urban area's. Even in my town, all the serious complaints of pitbull activity comes from a more colorful rich parts of town. My sister is ACO and all but a few incidents of dogfighting and dog biting..loose dogs...etc etc etc hale from those parts of the city. So I do disagree about who's dogs are doing what to who. As for the dogs in general getting a bad rap...sure I agree that alot of incidents involve clueless white folks, however I would venture to guess that the majority of those are more accidental due to ignorance than to be more of deliberate actions of the urban pitbull owning population. You may disagree with what I type however, Ive been around a long time and have seen and experienced all of what I say through my own eyes to know it be true. ---------- Post added at 09:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 PM ---------- Strange, maybe it's the area I'm from (SoCal, so plenty of black people here too) but the pitbull stigma is less about "black people" and more about "thugs" (which in these parts usually means black, brown and yellow). I also realize that in many other parts of the US, white guys will also fit that stigma. So I actually think it's less about the color of the people and rather the local flavor, if that makes sense. But if we are simply wondering why the non-pitbull crowd might associate pitbulls with "thugs", why not look at the following things: 1. Why are most pitbull sites embedded with Olde English font? Haven't really noticed the local knitting club crocheting "Ole E" letters in their latest caps. I can tell you of one place that LOVES Olde E: prison. 2. Why are plenty of pitbull sites pumping hip hop and rap? No, HH and rap are NOT thuggish in and of themselves, but there seems to be a theme... 3. What's with the names of Gotti, Capone, Noriega, and all thug, criminal, dictator related monikers? Is it for a greater appreciation of world history? 4. Why are pits the only dogs portrayed in music videos as chained, human eating animals? I can name at least three rappers whose videos perpetuate the dog fighting look. Can't name a single country, R&B and slow jam singer whose video does the same. 5. Generally speaking, there's an irony from the "non-thuggish" crowd that continues to dress, speak, act and carry on like thugs whilst proclaiming "We're not thugs. But eff you if you think that". The old saying of looking, walking and quacking like a duck probably applies here... Now, none of these things by themselves are "thugs", but honestly which of these things are NOT associated with "thugs"? The guy who shaves his head, grows a goatee, wears extra large pants, sags, wears white Cortez sneakers, uses a military belt, has sleeve tats, drives a lowered ride with dubs, mugs when taking pics, squats when taking pics, is liberal about weed smoking, can talk about the last 7 fights he's been in, did not go to college, doesn't hold a steady job, etc. Again, none of these things in and of themselves is "thuggish" but are people really supposed to believe these individuals are NOT trying to perpetuate the thuggish image. Puhlease. Btw, please note that these descriptions don't necessarily apply to one race--we have plenty of black, white, brown and yellow sub groups that follow all of these things. It's merely an attempt to explain WHY pits and thugs are almost always associated together. Bravo ! Well said.
	Quote