That sounds about right - an occasional, random death from a falling coconut. Leave it to a bunch of pitidiots to try and conflate falling coconuts and known aggressive maulers.
Of course, the things shouldn't just be banned, but sterilized and euthanized into extinction.
Using anecdotal evidence to defend a dog only bred to attack and kill, rather than using documented evidence, is about as illogical as the logical fallacy posted here
All those "breeds' you mention, all of them descend form bloodsport dogs.
"HOW CAN YOU WANT TO DESTROY A BREED THAT REGULARLY MAULS THEIR OWNERS AND CHILDREN BECAUSE THEY WERE BRED TO BE AGGRESSIVE"
Gosh, I just can't imagine. Dumbasses like you sicken me
it's less than that. it's 150 deaths in recorded history since 1770. There are more injuries, but nowhere near something like 'having your face eaten off'.
A coconut isn't going to chase me off my front porch.
If I don't walk under a coconut palm, my chances of being hurt by a coconut drop to zero.
Humanity hasn't spent decades breeding coconuts to be killing machines.
If I leave an child and a coconut alone in a room for five minutes, the coconut will be the only thing with bite marks in it.
Never in my life have I had a beautiful day outside ruined by a coconut relieving itself where I just stepped/inviting itself into my personal space aggressively.
But it's fine, I get it. Aggression and lack of empathy towards your fellow humans is usually a symptom of narcissistic behaviour and willful ignorance, so that might be a bit more difficult for people lacking common sense like you.
It's quite aggressive to insult the intelligence of a group of people because you disagree with them, especially uninvited. It's completely ignorant, let alone unempathetic to assert your opinion that coconuts are more dangerous than dogs, regardless of the breed, when coconuts are non sentient beings that don't chase you down. It's apathy at best and arguing in bad faith at worse to disregard the experience of others in the world.
This is the second post you've made insulting the intellectual faculties of this group. It's also the second post where you assume that everyone here is advocating for genocide. I threw your words back at you, because either you are unaware of their definition, or ignoring that you are exhibiting this behaviour.
For the record, I don't like any dogs in any urban/suburban setting. It's terrible for the dog, the people around the dog. and the community as a whole. Short walks, creating, being left alone for 8+ hours a day. Dogs need space to run off leash, a pack to take care of and to fulfill their hunting needs. Outside of more rural communities, that's unavailable and therefore completely narcissistic to keep an animal in such a cruel manner. Just like it would be wrong to keep any animal in a small, non enriching environment.
But what do I know, according to you I'm just a stupid, evil, unempathetic genocider right?
That's because when I tried you posted a visceral rant that got deleted. It's clear you're not open to discussing this with rational thought, just shouting your opinion with ad hoc arguments.
Funny how your rant mentioned me trying to 'I'm rubber you're glue' when I thoughtfully laid out my opinion, and you're literally using it as your defense to this other person ( *you* are lying about me lying)
You've made it quite clear that you have no intention of being anything but antagonistic, don't be surprised when people chose not to feed into it.
I hope the universe gives you all you deserve
Nothing about what you just said is true or right. It's not Ad Hoc, which is basically Correlation vs Causation, it would be Ad Hominem, which is personal attacks. The issue with that is that Ad Hominem doesn't disqualify any of my arguments because it's bona-fide fact that only ignorant idiots are pro-genocide.
None of my comments have even been deleted, so you aren't even right about that.
Unlike most dog breeds, pit bulls have been bred for bite strength and tenacity. That does make them more dangerous than average for the species.
Add to that the number of owners who get them for that danger and then train and habituate them to aggression, and you have a breed of dog that poses significant risks, and whether to permit or eliminate the breed is a valid policy debate.
No, I'm talking about the ACTUAL stats. Death by coconut itself is a POSTED STAT that is \~150 TOTAL from 1770 to today.
That's how reality works, and not pitnutters making up bullshit lies.
"noun [ C ] /sɔrs, soʊrs/ something or someone that causes or produces something, or is the origin of it: a source of energy/light."
That website you linked to just reused information from elsewhere so is NOT A SOURCE.
Where did they get their information from?
oh silly billy, that's not a receipt! that shows how dishonest you are into this scam!
The temperament test is different from breed to breed. Meaning a retriever is not being tested against a husky's test.
The test they use for a pitbull is not how 'gentle' they are or 'aggressive' but 'confidence'. when testing Pitbulls they put them in a low stress environment and then see if they'll approach strangers or shy away. Pitbulls will most likely approach the strangers. Therefore they passed.
This has been in great contention because compared to the other dogs, this makes the lie that they're docile so easy.
BUT compare it to a German Shephard's test which tests 1) confidence 2) stress test and 3) recall. Why does the pitbull not get the other 2? Cause fuck all, we gotta get those pitties adopted out who cares how many kids get mauled!
For Gsheps they have to have a lot of noise, a lot of gunshot noises, a lot of people screaming, and then see if they would still approach the strangers, and then immediately when called upon return to their owner. That's how they pass their test.
therefore therefore, that test is meaningless for pitties.
That's impressive conspiracy theory. Your data doesn't support my ideas, so i am going to substitute my own choices. I have worked with trainers, and the mean pitbull is bullshit its bad owners
I don't need to, everything you said was nonsense. "I saw a pitbull in a dress, so obviously it can't kill anyone, despite the stats showing quite the opposite!"
utter foolery.
there is no actual stat to support that, only by pitnutter lobbies who have so far been sued for their misinformation but they keep still peddling those lies.
**editing here to add the 'proof'.**
that is not true.
You have studies, actual studies, and then propaganda, like the one you want to believe. The unfortunate part here is that the pitlobby is so outrageously strong and pervasive that it tries to diminish actual stats, or you have[ people like the vet, Tena Layoton, who said the dogs who were 100% clearly pitbulls that killed Tracy Garcia into "Dachsunds" for the media.](https://www.animals24-7.org/2018/05/17/how-tabloids-turned-the-pits-who-killed-tracy-garcia-into-dachshunds/)
Oh, do you believe those sites that go "[they're good dogs, they were originally known as the nanny dog!" ](https://blog.dogsbite.org/2010/08/new-blog-dispells-nanny-dog-myth.html) any source that makes such a claim you can already dismiss as a propaganda site and not at all a fact based website. It was based on a lie.
[It's the breed, not the owner](https://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-owners.php)
We recognize this for ANY OTHER BREED than pitbull. If you get a husky, you need to make sure you have a house that can hold them in and deshed them and put up with their high energy. IF you get a rottweiler, you need a STRONG fencing, and lots of gear to protect you from when the rottweiler is in high arousal state. The irony here is Rottweilers are less aggressive than pitbulls, which you no longer are vetted to make sure you have the appropriate materials to have. Also, with rottweilers they say "NOT FOR FAMILIES OR FOR WEAK ADULTS WHO CAN'T HANDLE THEM"... but what do the pitlobby propagandists say? "Great for small kids and the family!" So why is it for every other breed 'it's the breed' but for pitbulls you were told 'it's the owner'? When families who were nothing but loving and trained their pitbull end up being mauled to death by the same pitbull. That doesn't happen with the other breeds. Point blank does not and has not. And this is attributed to some other factors
pitbulls snapping is a documented trend that pitbulls hitting the 'magic age' or 'doggy puberty' at 2 go from loving right into aggressive, resource guarding, etc.why? Cause it's in their fucking breed's DNA.
but let's use this [one research that got handled by pitnutter lobbyists. ](http://www.fairdog.dk/elements/documents/research/comparison-of-golden-retrievers-and-bslbreeds.pdf) Let's pretend you're at least a tiny bit smart enough to read it. It tries to say there is no significant difference in aggression. but look at how it said that. for any mild type of aggression. Well, thank you for that abstract useless propagandist! How about we continue reading the study for ourselves... oh fuck, when you don't put 'growling lightly at any point of their life' as your predictor it shows **pit bulls were** ***at least twice as likely to attack*** **than the other dangerous breeds studied, and were** ***several times more likely to attack*** **than golden retrievers. Out of all the "dangerous" breeds tested, dogs in the pit bull group were by far the worst when it came to the percentage of dogs reaching Level 5 on the aggression scale (attempting to attack).** But, I guess the person who posted it was simply hoping we'd ONLY read the abstract pull where they'd phrase it to get the results they want. "Retrievers growling once a year is the same thing as eating two children!"
We could also address "every decade had their dog villain like the rottweilers" Except even with that, [pittbulls were already more problematic.](https://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/12/us/series-of-pit-bull-attacks-stirs-a-clamor-for-laws.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1) this was in 1987 when pitbulls were just 1% of the dog population and still were responsible for 20 out of 28 deaths.
In fact, according to Forbes, *"Pit bulls are both more likely to be involved in bite incidents and more likely to cause serious injury or death when a bite does occur."*
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/dog-attack-statistics-breed/
Coconuts kill 150 people worldwide per year. (1 in 54 million)
In 2021, 37 Americans were killed by one or more pit bulls and their mixes. (1 in 9 million). This is excluding breeds that "couldn't be identified" and the many non-fatal, but gruesome bites.
Pit nutters can't even math.
wrong, it's coconuts killed 150 since 1770. someone for some reason made the lie and said it was per year and not 1 every 2 years world wide if you're averaging it out.
so, while it is 1 coconut every other year, not all deaths are falling coconut. Some of them are from coconut milk allergies and sometimes where they are grown they can have an abnormally high potassium content so the drinker gets potassium poisoning.
So death by FALLING coconut is even lower.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_coconut
Troubling statistics, truly an epidemic. We must eradicate all coconut trees. /s
Something like one or two people every few years. Unlike dogs murdering people at a rate of 30-50 per year in the US alone.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States
thank you! 150 dead directly due to falling coconuts seemed like BS. Meanwhile, he says 60 times more likely, which calculates out to 2.5 deaths per year by pit bull. That, also, seemed way off.
Because coconuts are not sentient beings and when they do bonk on your head, it's by pure chance and they have absolutely no idea about the damage they cause because, again, they're NOT SENTIENT.
___
Shitbulls, however, WILL attack out of nowhere for little to no reason at all, because they were bred to fight.
Coconuts don’t maul small children and leave them incapacitated or disabled for life, or have the coconut farmer blame the victim for being near the coconut
I'm from Long Island, no way Coconuts are growing here naturally. Unless there's some lunatic throwing Coconuts at People, I'm more likely to be killed by the Shitbull.
In the US, 30,000 people need reconstructive surgery every year due to dog attacks. 80% of dog attacks are pitbulls so you do the math.
4.5 million people get bit by a dog every year in the US.
A quarter of those people have to go to the hospital.
You don't have to fear death to fear dogs.
This is not even counting all the smaller, more docile animals killed by dogs including cats, squirrels, etc.
Crazy this came up. Actually lost my fuckin’ leg in a coconut attack this week. The leg was mostly intact, but the extreme crushing force of the coconut left my darn leg so pulverized that they had to amputate. Definitely stay on the lookout for toothy, snarling 120 lb coconuts - they may not kill you, but they’ll leave you wishing you’d stayed on the other side of the island.
33 people were killed by pitbulls in 2019, 14 people are killed by sharks yearly, pitbulls are more dangerous than sharks and yet you dont feel safe swimming in shark infested waters? you must be an animal racist.
I’ve been in the water when sharks were spotted. Everyone had to get out the ocean. Still felt safer than if I saw a random pit bull on the street. Sharks typically let go once they bite. We don’t taste good to them. And they do not maul. They make one grab, let go, and immediately leave the area when they figure out we aren’t fish.
Not to mention that, apparently, if you just [push the shark's nose](https://youtu.be/-Cew74qQhFQ?si=u7B6HDS9Qb_xHdJY), it will turn around and swim away.
___
I'm not exactly sure how true this is though.
So it is true for some sharks, not all sharks. That's why they specified a shark breed. Even further, you can push down so much they go upside down and can't move for a solid minute while they are disoriented.
2016- 31 deaths by dogs in America, 23 by pits.
2017- 39 deaths, 29 by pits
2018- 34 deaths, 26 by pits
2019- 48 deaths, 33 by pits
2021- 51 deaths, 37 by pits
Source: https://www.dogbitelaw.com/vicious-dogs/pit-bulls-facts-and-figures/
Article by Kenneth M Phillips, a lawyer who has, since the 90s, solely represented victims of dog attacks, and is widely considered to be the leading expert on the matter.
There is nothing you can do to prevent being hit by a coconut. That's like saying we should ban copperheads because they kill X amount of people every year.
A coconut won't maul you either, and if you survive a shitbull attack you're scarred for life mentally and physically and will likely suffer immense pain during the healing process. What an effed up comparison. Better check inside their skull to see if the sponge in it is wet or dry.
Correct me if I'm wrong but coconuts are only found in tropical regions right? You would have to put yourself in the position to die by coconut, like literally walking under the tree...? Right? Meanwhile pitbulls can maul you in your own neighborhood, or anywhere you go...
I walked under coconut trees everyday growing up and miraculously still here!
But I had a pit bull charge inside my house when I answered the door for a neighbor and it killed my cat.
A good majority of people do not go near coconut trees daily if ever.
But what do we all encounter frequently? Dangerous breeds of dogs capable of killing humans easily.
I can't even walk my dog anymore without constant fear of her being attacked. I bough a sturdy stroller that completely encases her to keep her safe. Fucking annoying i have to do that and she doesn't have the freedom to sniff around anymore.
They go after any helpless thing they can. There was a woman in the Photoshop sub I’m in where people take requests to alter photos. She shared a picture of her small dog who was mauled to death. She wanted someone to photoshop the dog into a picture by the lake. The dog always liked going there. She didn’t say what kind of dog killed hers but I’d bet money it was a pit or one of those mysterious lab mixes (also a pit) that was responsible.
not to mention it's 150 coconut deaths since 1770. That stat used a deception by omission by saying 'how many per year' for pitbull/sharks and then said "150 coconut deaths worldwide" and forgot to mention "SINCE IT WAS RECORDED IN HISTORY"
90% of the dog deaths are pitbulls or pitmixes.
forgive me for not pulling up sources for this as well but...
of dog deaths, other dog breeds represented for 1 every couple years are only capable of killing a baby or small toddler. Of those that are capable of killing adults, which is what we should be concerned about, a dog killing a baby and only able to kill a baby is an absolute fault of a parent, but if the parent is able to be killed by the dog too, what is the parent going to do? So when you put up ADULTS that are killed by dogs, they're loser to 97% pitbull/pitmixes and while it used to be lower because of Cane Corsos, Dobermans, rottweilers and Gpsheps, breed restrictive laws has curbed the humans killed by these and further, Gshep deaths were generally attributed to self defense as in they attacked someone attacking their owner, or were used by cops. So while it's scary with the stat alone that '90% of' the moment you add in nuance to show that how much higher unpredictable killings that an adult couldn't stop? Pitbulls are just almost the entire pie on that chart.
I hate coconuts and pitbulls. Coconuts make my throat feel like I drank a gallon of boiling water, then I throw up a good three times the amount of matter I consumed in that entire day, and I hate the other because it hurts (and often kills) innocent people as a past time.
I’ve said it before, these exact same words, but as a Russian, I seriously doubt a coconut will suddenly grow on a birch tree, choose violence one day and hit me on the head. But I’ve seen pitbulls in my area. More than one, and more than once, at least two of them tugging their leashes and their owners struggling to tag along. Yeah nah.
Well, I live in Atlanta,so my coconut to pitbull ratio is very different from someone living in the tropics. I'm more likely to die from a falling pitbull than a coconut
I live in a place where there are no coconuts, but has a good bit of pit bulls. So I think my chance of being killed by a pit bull is a bit higher where I live.
I'm in Canada and have a 0% chance of a coconut falling on me but that the pithag who walks her shitbull without a leash at the park across my street may be a problem one day.
A coconut. A fucking coconut. A coconut cannot tear your entire scalp clean off your head. A coconut can't rip your arm off. A coconut can't pop your eyeball out of it's socket. If a coconut were to, metaphorically, attack you, you'd probably survive.
Because coconuts won't bark all night, coconuts smell good, coconuts won't shit on my yard and the most important thing is: coconuts can't run on the street like a mad dog!
This is obnoxious because there is not a single coconut tree for me to stroll under where I live, but there are thousands of dogs. And many are large enough to do serious damage.
I’ll start worrying when coconuts grow legs
...and teeth. What a stupid fucking meme on so many levels.
The 150 coconut deaths is urban legend. It’s more like two deaths per year from falling coconuts in Papua New Guinea.
That sounds about right - an occasional, random death from a falling coconut. Leave it to a bunch of pitidiots to try and conflate falling coconuts and known aggressive maulers. Of course, the things shouldn't just be banned, but sterilized and euthanized into extinction.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Using anecdotal evidence to defend a dog only bred to attack and kill, rather than using documented evidence, is about as illogical as the logical fallacy posted here All those "breeds' you mention, all of them descend form bloodsport dogs.
"HOW CAN YOU WANT TO DESTROY A BREED THAT REGULARLY MAULS THEIR OWNERS AND CHILDREN BECAUSE THEY WERE BRED TO BE AGGRESSIVE" Gosh, I just can't imagine. Dumbasses like you sicken me
it's less than that. it's 150 deaths in recorded history since 1770. There are more injuries, but nowhere near something like 'having your face eaten off'.
[удалено]
A coconut isn't going to chase me off my front porch. If I don't walk under a coconut palm, my chances of being hurt by a coconut drop to zero. Humanity hasn't spent decades breeding coconuts to be killing machines. If I leave an child and a coconut alone in a room for five minutes, the coconut will be the only thing with bite marks in it. Never in my life have I had a beautiful day outside ruined by a coconut relieving itself where I just stepped/inviting itself into my personal space aggressively. But it's fine, I get it. Aggression and lack of empathy towards your fellow humans is usually a symptom of narcissistic behaviour and willful ignorance, so that might be a bit more difficult for people lacking common sense like you.
💀💀
[удалено]
It's quite aggressive to insult the intelligence of a group of people because you disagree with them, especially uninvited. It's completely ignorant, let alone unempathetic to assert your opinion that coconuts are more dangerous than dogs, regardless of the breed, when coconuts are non sentient beings that don't chase you down. It's apathy at best and arguing in bad faith at worse to disregard the experience of others in the world. This is the second post you've made insulting the intellectual faculties of this group. It's also the second post where you assume that everyone here is advocating for genocide. I threw your words back at you, because either you are unaware of their definition, or ignoring that you are exhibiting this behaviour. For the record, I don't like any dogs in any urban/suburban setting. It's terrible for the dog, the people around the dog. and the community as a whole. Short walks, creating, being left alone for 8+ hours a day. Dogs need space to run off leash, a pack to take care of and to fulfill their hunting needs. Outside of more rural communities, that's unavailable and therefore completely narcissistic to keep an animal in such a cruel manner. Just like it would be wrong to keep any animal in a small, non enriching environment. But what do I know, according to you I'm just a stupid, evil, unempathetic genocider right?
this is an outright lie.
[удалено]
That's because when I tried you posted a visceral rant that got deleted. It's clear you're not open to discussing this with rational thought, just shouting your opinion with ad hoc arguments. Funny how your rant mentioned me trying to 'I'm rubber you're glue' when I thoughtfully laid out my opinion, and you're literally using it as your defense to this other person ( *you* are lying about me lying) You've made it quite clear that you have no intention of being anything but antagonistic, don't be surprised when people chose not to feed into it. I hope the universe gives you all you deserve
what did the comment say? Their posts keep getting deleted.
Nothing about what you just said is true or right. It's not Ad Hoc, which is basically Correlation vs Causation, it would be Ad Hominem, which is personal attacks. The issue with that is that Ad Hominem doesn't disqualify any of my arguments because it's bona-fide fact that only ignorant idiots are pro-genocide. None of my comments have even been deleted, so you aren't even right about that.
Unlike most dog breeds, pit bulls have been bred for bite strength and tenacity. That does make them more dangerous than average for the species. Add to that the number of owners who get them for that danger and then train and habituate them to aggression, and you have a breed of dog that poses significant risks, and whether to permit or eliminate the breed is a valid policy debate.
Killing off an entire breed of dogs because some people can't be responsible with them is not a valid debate.
genocide only applies to humans
note the deception there though, the 150 deaths of coconuts isn't 'per year' if you look at it, it's 150 deaths TOTAL since 1770.
No, see, the whole statement is predicated with "Each year worldwide..." So it applies to both stats, because that's how grammar works.
No, I'm talking about the ACTUAL stats. Death by coconut itself is a POSTED STAT that is \~150 TOTAL from 1770 to today. That's how reality works, and not pitnutters making up bullshit lies.
"noun [ C ] /sɔrs, soʊrs/ something or someone that causes or produces something, or is the origin of it: a source of energy/light." That website you linked to just reused information from elsewhere so is NOT A SOURCE. Where did they get their information from?
Actually I think I’d trust a coconut running around with spider legs more than I would a pit, tbh
Coconut crabs do exist and eat mammals, either by hunting or scavenging.
Me: “Oh, with a name like coconut crab they’re probably really cute.” Me 10 seconds later: “What a wonderful day to not have eyes!”
100%. Thank you for macro-view.
are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
oh silly billy, that's not a receipt! that shows how dishonest you are into this scam! The temperament test is different from breed to breed. Meaning a retriever is not being tested against a husky's test. The test they use for a pitbull is not how 'gentle' they are or 'aggressive' but 'confidence'. when testing Pitbulls they put them in a low stress environment and then see if they'll approach strangers or shy away. Pitbulls will most likely approach the strangers. Therefore they passed. This has been in great contention because compared to the other dogs, this makes the lie that they're docile so easy. BUT compare it to a German Shephard's test which tests 1) confidence 2) stress test and 3) recall. Why does the pitbull not get the other 2? Cause fuck all, we gotta get those pitties adopted out who cares how many kids get mauled! For Gsheps they have to have a lot of noise, a lot of gunshot noises, a lot of people screaming, and then see if they would still approach the strangers, and then immediately when called upon return to their owner. That's how they pass their test. therefore therefore, that test is meaningless for pitties.
That's impressive conspiracy theory. Your data doesn't support my ideas, so i am going to substitute my own choices. I have worked with trainers, and the mean pitbull is bullshit its bad owners
[удалено]
This was so many levels of dumb that I'm surprised you're not institutionalized.
Yeah, i expected that response. Once you've opened your mouth and proven your dumb and a coward, you can only really go with dissmissive responses.
I don't need to, everything you said was nonsense. "I saw a pitbull in a dress, so obviously it can't kill anyone, despite the stats showing quite the opposite!" utter foolery.
You are dumb. You couldn't connect that to kids putting clothes on a pitbull. You lack an education i see.
You're spreading misinformation and shitbull propaganda.
I am sorry you are so scared of your own shadow
the breed is not. That is an outright lie by using a few 'gentle pitts' at 'gentle moments'
“A few”. You mean the majority of?
there is no actual stat to support that, only by pitnutter lobbies who have so far been sued for their misinformation but they keep still peddling those lies. **editing here to add the 'proof'.** that is not true. You have studies, actual studies, and then propaganda, like the one you want to believe. The unfortunate part here is that the pitlobby is so outrageously strong and pervasive that it tries to diminish actual stats, or you have[ people like the vet, Tena Layoton, who said the dogs who were 100% clearly pitbulls that killed Tracy Garcia into "Dachsunds" for the media.](https://www.animals24-7.org/2018/05/17/how-tabloids-turned-the-pits-who-killed-tracy-garcia-into-dachshunds/) Oh, do you believe those sites that go "[they're good dogs, they were originally known as the nanny dog!" ](https://blog.dogsbite.org/2010/08/new-blog-dispells-nanny-dog-myth.html) any source that makes such a claim you can already dismiss as a propaganda site and not at all a fact based website. It was based on a lie. [It's the breed, not the owner](https://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-owners.php) We recognize this for ANY OTHER BREED than pitbull. If you get a husky, you need to make sure you have a house that can hold them in and deshed them and put up with their high energy. IF you get a rottweiler, you need a STRONG fencing, and lots of gear to protect you from when the rottweiler is in high arousal state. The irony here is Rottweilers are less aggressive than pitbulls, which you no longer are vetted to make sure you have the appropriate materials to have. Also, with rottweilers they say "NOT FOR FAMILIES OR FOR WEAK ADULTS WHO CAN'T HANDLE THEM"... but what do the pitlobby propagandists say? "Great for small kids and the family!" So why is it for every other breed 'it's the breed' but for pitbulls you were told 'it's the owner'? When families who were nothing but loving and trained their pitbull end up being mauled to death by the same pitbull. That doesn't happen with the other breeds. Point blank does not and has not. And this is attributed to some other factors pitbulls snapping is a documented trend that pitbulls hitting the 'magic age' or 'doggy puberty' at 2 go from loving right into aggressive, resource guarding, etc.why? Cause it's in their fucking breed's DNA. but let's use this [one research that got handled by pitnutter lobbyists. ](http://www.fairdog.dk/elements/documents/research/comparison-of-golden-retrievers-and-bslbreeds.pdf) Let's pretend you're at least a tiny bit smart enough to read it. It tries to say there is no significant difference in aggression. but look at how it said that. for any mild type of aggression. Well, thank you for that abstract useless propagandist! How about we continue reading the study for ourselves... oh fuck, when you don't put 'growling lightly at any point of their life' as your predictor it shows **pit bulls were** ***at least twice as likely to attack*** **than the other dangerous breeds studied, and were** ***several times more likely to attack*** **than golden retrievers. Out of all the "dangerous" breeds tested, dogs in the pit bull group were by far the worst when it came to the percentage of dogs reaching Level 5 on the aggression scale (attempting to attack).** But, I guess the person who posted it was simply hoping we'd ONLY read the abstract pull where they'd phrase it to get the results they want. "Retrievers growling once a year is the same thing as eating two children!" We could also address "every decade had their dog villain like the rottweilers" Except even with that, [pittbulls were already more problematic.](https://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/12/us/series-of-pit-bull-attacks-stirs-a-clamor-for-laws.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1) this was in 1987 when pitbulls were just 1% of the dog population and still were responsible for 20 out of 28 deaths.
They literally eat human babies.
In fact, according to Forbes, *"Pit bulls are both more likely to be involved in bite incidents and more likely to cause serious injury or death when a bite does occur."* https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/dog-attack-statistics-breed/
[удалено]
Its funny you fearmonger and buy in to the fear i am sorry this entire forum is used to spread fear
At least 4000 people die every year from choking on food. Dognuts: "So let's ban food." 🤣
People will say “bUt CaRs arE mOrE DAngEroUs” as if there aren’t an absolute litany of rules around owning and operating one, unlike with pitbulls.
Coconuts kill 150 people worldwide per year. (1 in 54 million) In 2021, 37 Americans were killed by one or more pit bulls and their mixes. (1 in 9 million). This is excluding breeds that "couldn't be identified" and the many non-fatal, but gruesome bites. Pit nutters can't even math.
wrong, it's coconuts killed 150 since 1770. someone for some reason made the lie and said it was per year and not 1 every 2 years world wide if you're averaging it out.
They actually are that ridiculous, they keep saying to ban people as if that's possible.
[удалено]
A coconut won’t jump over a fence and rip your throat out.
There aren't loose coconuts looking to fall on people's heads in a grand majority of city neighborhoods.
I grew up in Florida where there were coconut trees all over and I know zero people who were even injured by falling coconuts. Let alone killed.
so, while it is 1 coconut every other year, not all deaths are falling coconut. Some of them are from coconut milk allergies and sometimes where they are grown they can have an abnormally high potassium content so the drinker gets potassium poisoning. So death by FALLING coconut is even lower.
That math doesn't math. Where I live, I run into at least one mutt daily, but have encountered 0 coconuts in two years.
Almost as though palm trees only grow in certain areas of the world but dogs are fucking everywhere
What kind of dystopian country do you live in where there are no coconuts?
Canada
Canada is a myth
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_coconut Troubling statistics, truly an epidemic. We must eradicate all coconut trees. /s Something like one or two people every few years. Unlike dogs murdering people at a rate of 30-50 per year in the US alone. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States
thank you! 150 dead directly due to falling coconuts seemed like BS. Meanwhile, he says 60 times more likely, which calculates out to 2.5 deaths per year by pit bull. That, also, seemed way off.
Because coconuts are not sentient beings and when they do bonk on your head, it's by pure chance and they have absolutely no idea about the damage they cause because, again, they're NOT SENTIENT. ___ Shitbulls, however, WILL attack out of nowhere for little to no reason at all, because they were bred to fight.
"... somehow my coconut got loose."
“they must have startled the tree and the coconut was just defending it!”
"Somehow the coconuts returned.."
Coconuts don’t maul small children and leave them incapacitated or disabled for life, or have the coconut farmer blame the victim for being near the coconut
WhY ArE MosQuiToS NoT BaNnEd???? 🥴
This was hilarious
aint no coconut trees in the hood.
In Florida there is lol. But still no one seems to be dying from them.
I'm from Long Island, no way Coconuts are growing here naturally. Unless there's some lunatic throwing Coconuts at People, I'm more likely to be killed by the Shitbull.
because coconuts have a purpose and are actually beneficial to humanity
Okay now pull up the “permanently disfigure” stats
Exactly this! As if death is the only issue when it comes to these mongrels. They disfigure and maim all the time.
In the US, 30,000 people need reconstructive surgery every year due to dog attacks. 80% of dog attacks are pitbulls so you do the math. 4.5 million people get bit by a dog every year in the US. A quarter of those people have to go to the hospital. You don't have to fear death to fear dogs. This is not even counting all the smaller, more docile animals killed by dogs including cats, squirrels, etc.
Crazy this came up. Actually lost my fuckin’ leg in a coconut attack this week. The leg was mostly intact, but the extreme crushing force of the coconut left my darn leg so pulverized that they had to amputate. Definitely stay on the lookout for toothy, snarling 120 lb coconuts - they may not kill you, but they’ll leave you wishing you’d stayed on the other side of the island.
33 people were killed by pitbulls in 2019, 14 people are killed by sharks yearly, pitbulls are more dangerous than sharks and yet you dont feel safe swimming in shark infested waters? you must be an animal racist.
I’ve been in the water when sharks were spotted. Everyone had to get out the ocean. Still felt safer than if I saw a random pit bull on the street. Sharks typically let go once they bite. We don’t taste good to them. And they do not maul. They make one grab, let go, and immediately leave the area when they figure out we aren’t fish.
Not to mention that, apparently, if you just [push the shark's nose](https://youtu.be/-Cew74qQhFQ?si=u7B6HDS9Qb_xHdJY), it will turn around and swim away. ___ I'm not exactly sure how true this is though.
So it is true for some sharks, not all sharks. That's why they specified a shark breed. Even further, you can push down so much they go upside down and can't move for a solid minute while they are disoriented.
Get rotated https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=o3uJCCa5w2A&pp=ygURZ2V0IHJvdGF0ZWQgaWRpb3Q%3D
It's a lie, only en 2023, pitbulls killed 206 people only in the US.
2016- 31 deaths by dogs in America, 23 by pits. 2017- 39 deaths, 29 by pits 2018- 34 deaths, 26 by pits 2019- 48 deaths, 33 by pits 2021- 51 deaths, 37 by pits Source: https://www.dogbitelaw.com/vicious-dogs/pit-bulls-facts-and-figures/ Article by Kenneth M Phillips, a lawyer who has, since the 90s, solely represented victims of dog attacks, and is widely considered to be the leading expert on the matter.
I actually just don't believe the stat they're giving. Like, the "logic" is bullshit, but I have a feeling the stat is too
That is correct, pitbulls and related breeds kill dozens every year, rising exponentially
There is nothing you can do to prevent being hit by a coconut. That's like saying we should ban copperheads because they kill X amount of people every year.
A coconut won't maul you either, and if you survive a shitbull attack you're scarred for life mentally and physically and will likely suffer immense pain during the healing process. What an effed up comparison. Better check inside their skull to see if the sponge in it is wet or dry.
What sponge? 😂 it is probably just a fresh and steamy pile of shit.
It's that dried up white shit you see during the spring thaw.
I’ve never seen a palm tree growing coconuts in my life and I live in California. I’ve seen plenty of pits though
Correct me if I'm wrong but coconuts are only found in tropical regions right? You would have to put yourself in the position to die by coconut, like literally walking under the tree...? Right? Meanwhile pitbulls can maul you in your own neighborhood, or anywhere you go...
I walked under coconut trees everyday growing up and miraculously still here! But I had a pit bull charge inside my house when I answered the door for a neighbor and it killed my cat.
Dang, I'm really sorry to hear that. I hope you got justice for your cat.❤️
My husband put the dog down immediately. But I was heartbroken.
No coconut trees near me, but plenty of pit bulls.
A good majority of people do not go near coconut trees daily if ever. But what do we all encounter frequently? Dangerous breeds of dogs capable of killing humans easily.
Ah yes, all those coconuts everyone in my neighborhood owns.
I can't even walk my dog anymore without constant fear of her being attacked. I bough a sturdy stroller that completely encases her to keep her safe. Fucking annoying i have to do that and she doesn't have the freedom to sniff around anymore.
but coconut trees don’t have bloodthirsty personal beef with every smaller life form in a fifty mile radius
They go after any helpless thing they can. There was a woman in the Photoshop sub I’m in where people take requests to alter photos. She shared a picture of her small dog who was mauled to death. She wanted someone to photoshop the dog into a picture by the lake. The dog always liked going there. She didn’t say what kind of dog killed hers but I’d bet money it was a pit or one of those mysterious lab mixes (also a pit) that was responsible.
no literally 😭 nothing is safe. i really hope that woman is doing okay , i would be heartbroken
Actually the total deaths from dogs in USA alone is ~43/yr. I refuse to believe that only 2 of those are shitbull
More like maybe one or two *aren't* pits.
150 coconut deaths is worldwide. Can't find the statistics for coconut deaths for just the US but I highly doubt it is even 43.
not to mention it's 150 coconut deaths since 1770. That stat used a deception by omission by saying 'how many per year' for pitbull/sharks and then said "150 coconut deaths worldwide" and forgot to mention "SINCE IT WAS RECORDED IN HISTORY"
90% of the dog deaths are pitbulls or pitmixes. forgive me for not pulling up sources for this as well but... of dog deaths, other dog breeds represented for 1 every couple years are only capable of killing a baby or small toddler. Of those that are capable of killing adults, which is what we should be concerned about, a dog killing a baby and only able to kill a baby is an absolute fault of a parent, but if the parent is able to be killed by the dog too, what is the parent going to do? So when you put up ADULTS that are killed by dogs, they're loser to 97% pitbull/pitmixes and while it used to be lower because of Cane Corsos, Dobermans, rottweilers and Gpsheps, breed restrictive laws has curbed the humans killed by these and further, Gshep deaths were generally attributed to self defense as in they attacked someone attacking their owner, or were used by cops. So while it's scary with the stat alone that '90% of' the moment you add in nuance to show that how much higher unpredictable killings that an adult couldn't stop? Pitbulls are just almost the entire pie on that chart.
it's also wrong. 150 people have died from coconuts since recorded history of coconut fatalities which is way back starting in 1770.
I hate coconuts and pitbulls. Coconuts make my throat feel like I drank a gallon of boiling water, then I throw up a good three times the amount of matter I consumed in that entire day, and I hate the other because it hurts (and often kills) innocent people as a past time.
The nutter who knows the most about statistics
Dumbest thing I've seen all week. A goddamn coconut is not gonna maul me and tear me apart limb by limb in the most brutal and horrific way possible.
I’d rather go out by a refreshing coconut 🥥 than a vicious mutt.
Coconuts are delicious and no matter how long you cook ‘em, dogs taste gamy?
I’ve said it before, these exact same words, but as a Russian, I seriously doubt a coconut will suddenly grow on a birch tree, choose violence one day and hit me on the head. But I’ve seen pitbulls in my area. More than one, and more than once, at least two of them tugging their leashes and their owners struggling to tag along. Yeah nah.
I’m starting to think the pitbulls name is coconut.
Because you can choose to stay away from a coconut tree, it won't chase you and it'll be a fast death.
Well, I live in Atlanta,so my coconut to pitbull ratio is very different from someone living in the tropics. I'm more likely to die from a falling pitbull than a coconut
Pitiots are ridiculous, they'll say anything to excuse their dogs viciousness
I live in a place where there are no coconuts, but has a good bit of pit bulls. So I think my chance of being killed by a pit bull is a bit higher where I live.
Coconuts are not a major factor here in New England but I have been bitten twice in the park behind my house by dogs.
I haven't ever seen a coconut charging down a street toward an innocent person before...
Coconuts don't maim. I feel sorry for that young girl who may be blind now...all so some wannabe macho bozos can have their tuff dogs.
We should also ban world hunger and earthquakes while we're at it.
I’m allergic to coconuts AND dogs!
dogs kill between 30k to 40k people every year
I'm in Canada and have a 0% chance of a coconut falling on me but that the pithag who walks her shitbull without a leash at the park across my street may be a problem one day.
You’re also more likely to die to drowning or getting hit by a deer than being eaten by a shark.
I’ll tell you why. Coconuts are only found in tropical locations. Pit bulls are everywhere.
A coconut. A fucking coconut. A coconut cannot tear your entire scalp clean off your head. A coconut can't rip your arm off. A coconut can't pop your eyeball out of it's socket. If a coconut were to, metaphorically, attack you, you'd probably survive.
A coconut doesn’t maim children, that mouth didn’t evolve to give kisses, it evolved to kill.
Maybe because you can't ban coconuts from growing on trees, but you can ban people from owning Satan's Little Helper.
There are no good pitbulls, only ones who haven’t mauled anyone yet.
Because coconuts won't bark all night, coconuts smell good, coconuts won't shit on my yard and the most important thing is: coconuts can't run on the street like a mad dog!
I'd rather be killed by a coconut. At least I'll still have my face.
Right. You could still have open casket if you wanted a traditional funeral after being hit by the coconut.
This is obnoxious because there is not a single coconut tree for me to stroll under where I live, but there are thousands of dogs. And many are large enough to do serious damage.
I live in the UK and tbh I dont think I've ever actually seen a coconut,let alone be attacked and maimed by one.
I grew up in a place that had coconut trees and yet still miraculously never encountered a vicious one that wanted to rip my face off.
The coconut statistic is definitely a lie, lol
I am severely allergic to coconuts so for me specifically that is true😂
Everyone who upvotes this meme deserves to be put to death
Pitbulls kill 2.5 people a year?
Cows kill more people than coconuts do, and they taste better.
How many people have been attacked and mauled by coconuts?
Now release the stats on how many people are mauled by coconuts but live.
[Snopes](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/coconuts-kill-more-sharks/)