However, turning that around, many many serial killers have a history of abuse. It's a combination of nature and nurture IMO.

:eek: :eek:

I agree - I'm just wondering aloud if:

a) Is there a genetic predisposition to violence of the worst sort and
b) How do we stop it? At what age should society give up on a violent child with the genetic predisposition towards it?

Maybe it is because Vick is a not so poor Black man who did not know better?

I suppose that you are in favor of racial profiling also? That makes enforcement easier.

Dogs are about genetic manipulation and breeding. These dogs were bred to fight and kill. What don't you understand? Race is about stereotypes.

Unless you're equating non-whites to dogs now and also believe that one race is genetically superior? I wouldn't put it past you. You're not a thinker.

-Rudey

I agree with this statement. I know it went on where I am from, so I understand how some people may not think of it as the brutal activity it really is.

BUT just because something goes on still doesn't make it right. :mad:

Rudey for some reason I find your ignorance irritating (instead of the usual entertaining commentary around here). Neither one of my dogs were bred to fight and kill, and neither were the puppies of my friends who have pit bulls. Stop believing everything you see on the 10 o'clock news - all pit bulls are not violent or mean. Hell, your aunt Martha's chihuaua is probably more vicious than my dog. Unfortunately, pits are bigger and stronger than your average dog, and so they are more appealing to some really awful people. That is what creates tragic situations like this Vick case - violent and irresponsible owners.

Stop stereotyping the breed, because the "Pits are violent, murderous animals" thing is simply not true. Some are, but not all.

Do you know what an analogy is?

Those dogs were originally bred to fight and kill each other, however, we don't use Yorkshire terriers to find and kill rats and mice anymore either. A dog breed is not valued on the original purposes in their breeding. I don't see stereotyping a breed any better or worse than stereotyping a race.

Also, you, with your holier than thou attitude and classist thought always struck me as the racist one. And you constantly stating I'm an idiot is ridiculous, over compensating much?

Boxers are not pit bulls!
 

You would be amazed at how many people think my boxer - a breed I selected specifically because they are so great with kids - is a pit bull! One woman, as I was walking my gentle fawn boxer, screamed "A PIT BULL!" and yanked her son out of the way.
Last time was in the vet's office. A woman who could not control her yellow lab started to complain about my "pit bull". Her lab was jumping up and down, barking, and lunging towards my dog, who was sitting and looking bewildered. Huh?
Just an observation - now back to your regularly scheduled discussion . . .

Of people, no. Of dogs, maybe. I don't see it as being at all the same.

(And to tell you the truth, I'm not sure I'd have a big problem with behavior based profiling for people, either. To me the problem is racial discrimination, not profiling itself; if you could have behavior based profiling that was somehow accurate and objectively based on behavior and it yields accurate results, wouldn't it be foolish not to use it?)

If we "profiled" the likely victims of crime to provide them additional protection, would that seem so wrong? Which is more what a breed ban would seem like to me.

I just know that I'd rather see animals protected, and if it means for some more commonly abused breeds, it's harder for people generally to own them, it might be okay.

What percentage of Pit Bulls and Pit Bull breeders are probably involved in dog fighting or sell to dog fighters? We might not be there yet, but if we were at the point that the majority of people interested in the breed were fighting them, wouldn't a ban make sense?

Of course, I don't pretend to know the answers, and even if there is a predisposition, which I'm inclined to agree with, as Drolefille pointed out, there is often abuse in the environment, too.

Some people get a double dose of the factors that would make them violent in the ways we're talking about. They have whatever genetic contribution that might matter, and then they are often raised by violent and abusive people who hurt them and also model hurting people and criminal behavior as "normal" things.

I don't know at what point the irresistibly violent urge going to be permanently switched on, but I really think that it is in some cases. Without literally constant monitoring, some of them are going to act on it. And I think it's actually set in some cases at shockingly young ages.

I think we can try to find out what the traits are and how they show themselves and then for this very narrow sub-set of people,* we should just never let them out of jail, no matter how young they were when we figured it out.

*I don't even think that most violent criminals are like this. I think a higher number either can be rehabilitated or can be kept in jail past the age at which they are likely to be most violent. But I think Ted Bundy would have kept killing until he was dead, no matter how long he lived, and there's no point in pretending that people like him (or Dalmer, Gacey, the Green River Killer, or the BTK guy) can be fixed.

A JAVMA reference about pit bull terriers

Yes, there is a genetic predisposition to violence. It involved large subfamilies of genes, which are different in each human criminal profile. If the YY chromosome is one case of genetic development of violent behavior and psychotic thought patterns or even early stage schizophrenic episodes for that matter, then it is quite conceivable there is a molecular physiological predisposition toward violence.

However, the key issue is ENVIRONMENT! If children who are inappropriately reared, such a sexually/physically abused, then the likelihood of triggering these violent episodes.

Another issue is lack of nutrients, especially vitamin B-6 and B-12. Without vitamin B-12, a whole slew of differentials appear with neuropsychotropic malbehaviors.

How to stop it. Early intervention and the best pre-pregnancy, prenatal and post natal care that includes dieticians, nutritionists, age appropriate exercises and care.

View and support Amnesty International's and UNICEF's child protection to make early childhood development a "Geneva Convention" or International Law...

It's fine if you find it irritating. The fact of the matter is that people don't realize that genetic manipulation has been most prevalent in dog breeding. Forget about vegetables and human babies. Dogs have been bred to achieve certain traits, irregardless of how it affects society or their own health (ie some dogs have severe health problems and shorter lives but look a certain way for their owners).

Is that the truth? Yes. Is it irritating? I don't care.

Now there is absolutely no reason to breed a dog to be able to attack and kill better. You can have that same love for a dog regardless of the breed. Am I wrong here or are you just irritated because you own one? Whether or not humans use them to fight has no relevance because if they used a smaller dog to fight, it would cause a lot less damage. It's the same principal - we don't put automatic machine guns in the hands of felons knowingly and think it's OK.

-Rudey

So what are WE all calling genetic manipulation? Series of brother sister matings somewhat like Mendel's "flowering pea pods"? Or are we talking insertion of DNA or shRNA or stablized microRNA fragments into the zygote/blastocyst stage to make transgenics or knockout dogs? Cloning dogs has not been proven to be overly difficult, some breeds, like Beagles are easy. Maybe pitbulls are similar? I don't know? :confused:

But, I would not want to make transgenic pitbulls with anything added to them. A safer way to genetically modify them is injecting them with a disabled virus with an over-expression casette.

Whether it's done under a microscope or supervised mating, it's still manipulation. Here is an article from the NYTimes about genetic manipulation on dogs as well as a bunch of other material it quotes:

"Free of most of the ethical concerns — and practical difficulties — associated with the practice of eugenics in humans, dog breeders are seizing on new genetic research to exert dominion over the canine gene pool. Companies with names like Vetgen and Healthgene have begun offering dozens of DNA tests to tailor the way dogs look, improve their health and, perhaps soon, enhance their athletic performance."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/12/science/12dog.html
http://genetics.plosjournals.org/per...l.pgen.0030079
http://www.dogdna.org/
http://research.nhgri.nih.gov/dog_genome/
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/316/5821/112
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0506940103v1
http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi.../full/esm018v1
vetgen.com
genmarkag.com
healthgene.com

-Rudey
--There is nothing natural about creating Franken-dogs.

Well, out of the "respectable" articles I see what you have up here most are examining gentoypes and phenotypes of the changes that can be "ferreted" out and optimized.

We are not quite YET at the blastocyst injection stage to make full fledge frankens. Like dino coming out of snoopy--not yet. It is a matter of time, if we can pass PETA. But folks want their world class dog for competitions.

I would say 5-10 years we will have Governator's Arnold S "re-pet". Fully, without immune incompetence due to genomic or epigenetic instability.

If folks have a problem, Here is what we are discussing:

http://genetics.plosjournals.org/arc...079.g001-M.jpg

The animals on the far right have the genetic mutation.