The idea is to put large, powerful animals like bulls or lions in the ring with several dogs, and the winner lives.
The sport has existed for thousands of years. One of our first records is of Indians showing it to Alexander the Great.
The first record in England comes from 1610 and features King James I requesting the Master of the Beargarden—a bear training facility—to provide him with three dogs to fight a lion.
Two of the dogs died and the last escaped because the lion did not wish to fight and retreated.
The sport had become popular across Europe.
People would import lions and set the most vicious dogs they could breed against them, in a pit—'pit them against them'.
A showing happened in Vienna in 1791.
The lion was magnanimous.
The crowd came for blood, but the lion didn't deliver any. Instead, it seemed to warn the dog that attacked it to turn away, and he simply let it go.
The sport was banned in Austria a few short years later.
But the sport carried on in Britain, and it was a far more disgusting spectacle because it had been far more refined.
The biggest promoter was one George Wombwell, who partnered with dog breeders who had created the predecessor to the pit bull—a vicious, unrelenting, evil dog.
The first of two of Wombwell's fights before the public was between the lion Nero and several of these ravening dogs.
The fight begins with the display of the lion and the first round of dogs.
Evidently, Nero had no interest in a fight. The dogs, however, sought a kill.
The fight continued with more of the same.
The dogs were unrelenting, and the lion was yelping, wailing, and refusing to ever start the fight.
The dogs did what they were bred for, and the lion showed the grace it's known for.
In the second round, the dogs simply brutalized the lion, but he never, at any point, wanted to fight.
He was always backing away and wondering why he was under attack.
The Nero fight was one-sided, and it did not make readers happy to hear.
But it wasn't the last of the horrible fights in Britain.
The second was also hosted by Wombwell, and it featured a lion named Wallace—the lion depicted in the first post.
Wallace was regarded as a much more fearsome lion than Nero.
In matters of feeding, he was not temperate. He would snarl at his handlers and didn't like to let them approach him.
So, he would presumably be able to show to the public that lions can relish in the sport.
When the dogs were released, the lion waited.
They were vicious, he was not. But he retaliated and bludgeoned and bit them, cutting them down.
The attack on Wallace continued, with fresh foes entering the pit.
Wallace squatted up and again, did not aim to start the fight. But he would end it.
Every one of the senseless attacks by the dogs was met with their deaths, and plenty of evidence of Wallace's mercy, too.
The ringmasters released more dogs on Wallace, and he kept defeating them as they came.
After killing what was apparently the best fighting dog in all of England, the match was declared in favor of Wallace.
Britain would never see another lion bait after these fights.
The public *hated* what happened. They considered it to be abject barbarity, and they recognized that lions did not want to fight like these killer dogs.
A few years later, the Cruelty to Animals Act banned baiting.
The only other animals that are as ferocious as pit bulls are others bred by humans to be that way.
Perhaps the lone exception might be hyenas, but even they don't seem to fly into a rage and kill everything around them after being set off.
Humanity bred an evil dog. It bred this dog in conditions of immense cruelty.
The only way to suss out which dogs had the reflexes for baiting was to put them into fights, to tease, excite, shout at, and physically manhandle them into a rage.
The only just action at this point in time is to eliminate all the breeds like this, all the breeds who have been genetically contaminated by the most extreme, degrading, and evil sorts of animal cruelty.
And PETA agrees: spay or neuter every single pit bull.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
- His license is suspended
- He was once a soldier for a Mafia family
- He's telling me about his time in Rikers
- He's showing me YouTube videos
- He's telling me his theories about Jews
He's telling me about gang wars he was in ad a kid.
He's wondering why all the Chinese girls are lined up - for an audition?
He says to go to Mother's Ruin for latin prostitutes.
All of this entirely unprompted.
"Yeah, these African guys, yeesh"
"I couldn't fuck that whore because I got the erectile dysfunction."
As a recap on my appearance, Eli Lilly is pursuing:
- A one-dose drug for preventing most heart disease
- A vaccine for chlamydia
- A vaccine for gonorrhea
- A vaccine for Epstein-Barr
- A drug that lets you stay awake longer and feel more rested
And remember, Eli Lilly's big break historically was the University of Toronto licensing them to produce insulin.
They started off by giving it out for free, saving the world's diabetics at a time when there was no treatment available.
They've always been a force for good.
I think
- The heart disease drug will succeed
-- Will it commercialize? It can, easily. But I'm 50/50 due to the competition
- Chlamydia and gonorrhea vax will succeed, but I don't see much commercial potential with Lilly
- EBV vaccine will fail with Lilly, succeed eventually
Are White women the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action?
That's a real claim that's commonly advanced by journalists, and the claim has gone so far that it's even made its way into academic publications and policy.
But the claim is completely false🧵
This claim doesn't make a lot of sense. After all, shouldn't the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action be the people who the policies primarily target?
In America, that's African Americans and, among them, women get an added benefit. How could it be Whites?
To figure out where the claim comes from, I started reading supposed sources.
Often enough, journalists will just take the claim for granted without providing *any* source.
It's just tacit knowledge now, and that's not good!
World War I devastated Britain and likely slowed down its technological progress🧵
The reason being, the youth are the engine of innovation.
Areas that saw more deaths saw larger declines in patenting in the years following the war.
To figure out the innovation effects of losing a large portion of a generation's young men who were just coming into the primes of their lives, the authors needed four pieces of data.
The first were the numbers and pre-war locations of soldiers who died.
The next components were the numbers and locations of patent filings.
If you look at both graphs, you see obvious total population effects. So, areas must be normalized.