Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

EJH-RVA t1_iy63wcr wrote

Reply to comment by Diet_Coke in No criminal charges for owner of pit bull that killed 88 year old woman by AphidGenocide

If you want to research, DogsBite.org is a great place to start.

7

Diet_Coke t1_iy647zs wrote

DogsBite.org was started by someone with an axe to grind and frequently publishes misleading and incorrect information, you should look into them more. That's like starting on Breitbart to get an idea of crime statistics.

5

EJH-RVA t1_iy64z5j wrote

That’s not at all true, but it’s a common claim in the pro-pit bull community. Every instance they report is sourced and includes linked articles. You should check your facts before spreading lies and mis-information. The fact remains, someone is dead because her neighbor owned a pit bull who mauled her. It was a pit bull because it’s almost always a pit bull. Full stop.

2

Diet_Coke t1_iy65dhm wrote

I'm not the pro-pit bull community, I'm just a person who knows what logical fallacies are. For example, even if dogbites.org is 100% reliable and factual (even though they're not and all you have to do is look at their Wikipedia page) all they're doing is passing on media reports which are rife with their own issues. Do you seriously think they're getting a DNA test on every dog bite they report?

7

EJH-RVA t1_iy6686p wrote

Your comment speculating about the pit bull’s “likely history of trauma” suggests otherwise.

I judge a site by their content, not their Wikipedia page.

3

Diet_Coke t1_iy66pjs wrote

Yes, it's a fact that pitbulls and pitbull mixes have been done dirty by humans. There are a ton of them in shelters, and shelters aren't a good environment for dogs to be in. That a dog of any kind that wasn't specifically trained as a guard dog viciously attacks anyone is a sign of trauma.

You're not judging the site at all, as a matter of fact. Judging implies some level of critical thinking. You're just accepting it as truth without critical thinking being involved. Here's an obvious question you haven't thought to ask before advocating for the murder of people's pets: what kind of background in statistics does the owner of dogsbite dot org have?

3

EJH-RVA t1_iy67f62 wrote

So the two pit bulls who were purchased as 8-week old puppies, were raised as family dogs and then mauled and killed their owners two babies recently in Tenn., what trauma caused them to do that?

5

Diet_Coke t1_iy67how wrote

What's the difference between an anecdote and data?

This 8 year old was severely mauled by a Labrador a couple months ago (source) - are labradors mindless killing machines?

2

EJH-RVA t1_iy67saw wrote

OK, I’m done here. It was a pit bull. Because it’s almost always a pit bull. Your distraction deflection attempts won’t ever change that.

3

Diet_Coke t1_iy68au5 wrote

It's like they say, you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - and you have not arrived at your conclusions by way of reason.

5

EJH-RVA t1_iy68sry wrote

Except she was mauled by a pit bull. I’m not sure what you’re debating here. Are you suggesting it was actually a golden doodle?

6

Diet_Coke t1_iy696fb wrote

Same dog, same circumstances in life, but as a golden doodle instead of a pitbull? Yeah sure, it absolutely could have been. There's nothing about pitbulls as a breed that makes them more likely than any other breed to attack anyone. It comes down to the individual dog.

5

EJH-RVA t1_iy69c7g wrote

Except it’s almost always a pit bull. Statistics.

4

Diet_Coke t1_iy6blst wrote

Except it's very clearly not and you've repeatedly failed to provide a decent source on that. I'm glad you know the word statistics, now go learn the words bias and fallacy.

3

LastCallBee t1_iy8bj4u wrote

Is this not correct?

https://dogbitelaw.com/vicious-dogs/pit-bulls-facts-and-figures/amp

https://www.aaha.org/publications/newstat/articles/2019-06/new-study-identifies-most-damaging-dog-bites-by-breed/

I’d love to be an apologist for pitbulls but I don’t ever see it happening. They are objectively more dangerous animals to own for both owners and other people. Talk all this game about bias and fallacy and provide 0 sources.

I feel like there are just as many bullshit pit lover studies as there may be skewed pit hater studies regardless. I found a lot of both.

2

Diet_Coke t1_iy8d4xr wrote

The first one looks like garbage, its first citation is a YouGov online poll and then it has several citations of the publisher of Animals 24-7.

Hard to assess how good the second one is because it is a meta study and so it's not super easy to dig into the methodology. I believe any study that's looking at reported breeds is open to error as pitbulls are the most likely breed to be misidentified.

>Talk all this game about bias and fallacy and provide 0 sources.

I have repeatedly linked this wikipedia list of dog bite fatalities in this thread, you can look at it yourself and see that while there are pitbulls and pitbull mixes, they are not even close to the majority of cases despite being much more prevalent than many of the other dogs on there.

3