Parents for Dog Bite Awareness

𝗛𝗲𝗿𝗲’𝘀 𝗮 𝗽𝘀𝘆𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸𝗱𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗞𝗲𝗻𝗻𝗲𝘁𝗵’𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝘀𝗼 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗶𝘁 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗝𝗲𝗻𝗻𝗶𝗳𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘀 𝘂𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗸 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 and  𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲.

-JL #DBA

𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗕𝗟𝗘𝗠 𝟭: 𝗖𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗼𝗿𝘆 𝗘𝗿𝗿𝗼𝗿 (𝗙𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘂𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗶𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲)

Kenneth treats all “attempted aggression” as if they are identical, regardless of:

• intent

• drive strength

• bite inhibition

• target commitment

• escalation pattern

• ability to kill

This is a category collapse: flattening all behaviors into the same category so he can argue that pits and chihuahuas are morally equivalent.

But the relevant category is danger/risk (likelihood + severity).

He completely ignores severity because it destroys his argument.

This is an evasion, not a logical stance.

𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗕𝗟𝗘𝗠 𝟮: 𝗠𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗘𝗾𝘂𝗶𝘃𝗮𝗹𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗙𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗰𝘆

Kenneth tries to impose a moral framing:

“𝗶𝗳 𝗷𝘂𝗱𝗴𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝘆 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹𝘁𝘆, 𝗯𝗼𝘁𝗵 𝗱𝗼𝗴𝘀 𝗱𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗲 𝗯𝗮𝗱 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗿.”

This reframes the debate into a moral one instead of a risk and public safety one. It’s a tactic used by people who feel judged. If pits are dangerous, Kenneth feels like he is being judged (identity fusion), so he shifts the frame to morality to make the criticism seem unreasonable.

𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗕𝗟𝗘𝗠 𝟯: 𝗟𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗡𝘂𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗕𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗜𝗱𝗲𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆

Pit advocacy functions very much like a belief system. Once someone buys in, they adopt rigid talking points:

• “All dogs bite.”

• “It’s how you raise them.”

• “Small dogs are just as bad.”

• “Breed doesn’t matter.”

Kenneth is reciting doctrine, not reasoning.

That’s why he’s not engaging with Jennifer’s point at all. Bc his goal is defense, not dialogue.

𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗕𝗟𝗘𝗠 𝟰: 𝗖𝗼𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 → 𝗠𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗢𝘂𝘁𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗤𝘂𝗶𝗹𝘁-𝗦𝗵𝗶𝗳𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴

If he accepts:

• pit bulls kill

• chihuahuas do not

• ability matters

Then he must confront an uncomfortable truth: 𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀.

To avoid that internal discomfort, he performs cognitive reshuffling:

“All dogs are equally bad, the only difference is size!”

This lets him avoid responsibility, guilt, or reevaluating his beliefs.

𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗕𝗟𝗘𝗠 𝟱: 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗴𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗼 𝗦𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗿 𝗗𝗼𝗴𝘀

Kenneth insists a chihuahua is “trying” to kill you, which is:

• factually wrong

• behaviorally uninformed

• emotionally revealing

This projection is common among pit apologists. They reassign pit specific drive (grab/bite/shake, kill bite patterns) to all dogs.

Why? Because if all dogs have the same internal “kill drive,” then breed specific discussions lose power.

This is a psychological defense, not an observation of reality.

𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗕𝗟𝗘𝗠 𝟲: 𝗕𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 (𝗕𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗪𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲 𝗖𝗼𝗴𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, also known as splitting in some mental health categories)

Kenneth cannot process gradations of risk.

To him, either:

• a dog is good, or

• a dog is bad

He cannot tolerate:

“𝗕𝗼𝘁𝗵 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗯𝗲 𝗮𝗴𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗹𝘆.”

This binary mindset is typical of people who have low tolerance for nuance or ambiguity. Instead of analyzing risk level, he flattens everything to one category: “aggression.”

But in public safety, severity matters.

In Kenneth’s worldview, nuance threatens his identity alignment with the breed.

𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗕𝗟𝗘𝗠 𝟳: 𝗘𝗴𝗼 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗼𝗹𝘃𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 / 𝗜𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗙𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻

Many pit bull defenders don’t just like pits, they fuse pits into their identity:

• “I’m a good person.”

• “My dog is good.”

• “If my dog is dangerous, it says something bad about me.”

This fusion is why Kenneth escalates emotionally instead of reasoning.

He is defending himself, not the logic.

𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗕𝗟𝗘𝗠 8: 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗠𝗼𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗺 𝗣𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹

Kenneth assumes:

“𝗜𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝗱𝗼𝗴 was 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗮 𝗽𝗶𝘁, 𝗶𝘁 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗼𝗼.”

This is fantasy projection.

Small dogs generally:

• lack kill intent

• exhibit fear displays, not committed attacks

• bite and release

• lack the muscular structure for sustained mauling

He gives pitbull traits to all dogs to erase the distinction.

𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗕𝗜𝗚𝗚𝗘𝗦𝗧 𝗣𝗦𝗬𝗖𝗛𝗢𝗟𝗢𝗚𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟 𝗧𝗥𝗨𝗧𝗛

Kenneth must believe:

“𝗔𝗹𝗹 𝗱𝗼𝗴𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝗯𝗮𝗱.”

Because if he accepts:

“𝗦𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗴𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿𝗼𝘂𝘀.”

→ then he must accept breed differences

→ then he must accept pitbull risk

→ then he must consider safety

→ then he must consider whether owning them is irresponsible

→ then he feels personally attacked

𝗛𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝘀𝘆𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝗴𝗼 𝘄𝗼𝗻’𝘁 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝗶𝘁.

So he collapses the entire argument into a false, simplistic “all dogs are dangerous” worldview.

When you see this common tactic every day out there, realize that they aren’t trying to delude you. They’re trying to delude themselves. 

#dogbiteawareness