869
We all need that (reddthat.com)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/aww@lemmy.world
113 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 10 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Sorry, I underestimated your reading comprehension. Inthe infographic you provided, what does the "Dog Bite org" refer to? I'm not asking for other stats. I'm not asking for other sources. I'm asking about the infographic you provided. So, please, go on.

Also, I am not claiming to provide anything. I just have some doubt on the source material on that infographic.

None of the linked screenshots appear to be a proper source, certainly not mentioning "Dog Bite org". The first one seems to be from wikipedia, which is fine, albeit not a source, they are probably properly sourced. But that one seems to claim a 20-something percentage number and not the 60-something number in the infographic. If I misread the stats, I'm sure you'll correct me. Still, it is the original infographic that I'm concerned with.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    I've provided a source. You doubting me puts the burden of proving me wrong on YOU.

    Wanting me to do all the work is typical troll fashion, when you've given nothing to back your point that DogBite is an invalid source.

    So keep trolling. We both know I've provided infinitely more than I should have since you're clearly not arguing in good faith, troll.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Do you even read what you post? Yes, I claimed that the source is bad (not necessarily "invalid", but unreliable). You then said it is not the actual source. I asked you to clarify the actual source, and you: 1. Provide a source contradicting yours, with exactly the same backing as I had for doubting it: AVMA 2. Imply that "DogBite" is the source, hence not only contradicting yourself but also a separate source you used. This is bare minimum critical thinking skills missing here. What I think you are doing is pursuing the subject with a confirmation bias. You believe pit bulls to be dangerous, hence every source which supports that is valid. But that appears not to be true, by the data you yourself have provided. They both support your claim to some degree, but the data does not agree. It is nonsense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Alright.

    This is from the NHS:

    Abstract: A Review of Dog Bites in the United States from 1958 to 2016: Systematic Review of the Peer-Reviewed Literature

    "Since 2001, Pit Bull type breeds have accounted for the largest subset of dog bites reported in the medical literature (37.5%), with mixed breeds (13.3%) and German Shepherds (7.1%) accounting for the 2nd and 3rd largest minority groups during this same time period. In addition to these findings, we evaluated the effectiveness of breed specific legislation in Denver, CO, the largest jurisdiction in the United States with a pit bull ban in place. Since 2001, 5.7% of bites in Denver, CO were attributed to Pit Bull type breeds compared to 54.4% in the remainder of the United States."

    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5636534/

    Notably you'll notice that a ban, not even just proper cage and muzzle regulation, was the result of an ~89.5% reduction in pitbull attacks (1-(5.7/54.4)).

    This is from a paper on the effectiveness of Pit Bull bans and the human factors involved in the breed's behaviour:

    Pit Bull Bans and the Human Factors Affecting Canine Behavior

    It says, among other things: "Health professionals and animal behaviorists point out that breed is only one of "[s]everal interacting factors" that determine a dog's likelihood to attack. 21"

    Meaning this paper acknowledges the role of breed as a confounding genetic factor affecting dog aggression.

    https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1336&context=law-review

    Digging into that link they provide for this claim, we find,

    Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998

    "As in recent years, Rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks, followed by pit bull-type dogs"

    https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/resources/javma_000915_fatalattacks.pdf?mf_ct_campaign=msn-feed

    You can doubt the authenticity of the studies I've listed all the way down, bringing up allegiances and ulterior motives, as well as statistical inconsistencies due to missing data about the exact number of Pit Bulls in the US.

    Here's one final nail in the coffin, look at the following article:

    Breed differences in canine aggression

    This shows clear as day differences in aggressive response by dog breeds.

    https://topdogtips.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Breed-Differences-in-Canine-Aggression.pdf

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You say "alright", like you are responding to what I'm saying. And you are not at all. Then you are so increadibly dishonest it is unbelivable. The study you quote as saying

    As in recent years, Rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks, followed by pit bull-type dogs

    As support for your opinion that pit bulls are dangerous. It has a preamble statement to the article, which if you read, you would not be referencing this article. It says:

    In contrast to what has been reported in the news media, the data from this study CANNOT be used to infer any breed-specific risk for dog bite fatalities (e.g., neither pit bull-type dogs nor Rottweilers can be said to be more “dangerous” than any other breed based on this study).

    and that is their emphasis.

    You cannot cherry pick data or quotes from studies to try and claim they support something the studies themselves say they cannot be used to support. It is missleading, it is anti-scientific, and so increadibly dishonest.

    Something supporting your broader claim may be found in one of the other studies. I'm not saying it may not. But I would not trust a word of what you say about anything. You ignore the critique I bring up. Try to gish gallop your way out of it, ending up just lying in the process.

    And nothing has anything to do with my original issue with your post. You just made it worse all on yoir own.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Dishonesty is you thinking you have a point while not providing a single source. Get off that high horse.

    Cherry picking on top of it all, you're a clown.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Are you saying this just because you are angry, or your actual rational conclusion? Because my claim was that the infograph used a bullshit source, and I doubted the figure due to it. Then you provided another source from another org, AVMA, stating a different number, proving that the graph was bull. Not only that, that source organisation, AVMA, was also the same that I used to claim that "Dog bite org" looked shady.

    What claim do you want me to source? That "dog bite org" appears to be bull? That is basically the only attempt at a claim I have made. Well, AVMA is my source then. You linked them. Read them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent