Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I live in Brooklyn, and Prospect Park designates three off-leash areas before 9 am for dogs to run around. Sure, there are sometimes dog spats and once in a while dogs get bitten (my own included once), but I have never seen a "bloodbath." There are also runners, birders, and assorted random people in the park at that time, and we all somehow manage to rub along together. This is my dog's favorite part of the day and truly a godsend for me, since he is a very energetic 70 lb German Shepherd/Huskie mix, and I honestly don't think I could exercise him enough solely through my own efforts and my spouse's combined. I can't run around at top speed like he does with the other dogs!
I live in a city with a similar situation. It's been great for the dogs and by 9am, they are leashed. Works out well.
Well, the reason it works well is because you are following the rules. Show up at 11 with your unleashed dog while the local sitters are there with 10 preschoolers, and you've got a problem.
Sure, but some people seem to just be arguing that a dog should never be off leash outside their own home.
The aggressive dog owners are such jerks. They want everyone to walk around on high alert because they insist on keeping dogs that can literally kill around others. Sick and depraved
The thread-derailing anti-pit bullies are such jerks. They want everyone to share their paranoid take because they insist their paranoia is reality, despite copious evidence to the contrary being regularly provided (and ignored). Sick and deranged.
We get it. You hate pit bulls. If it's making it hard for you to focus, stay on task, and get through your day without unhinged ranting, you should seek help
.
What copious evidence is there to the contrary? When I chat gpt aggressive dog breeds, pit comes up first. Is chargpt wrong but you are right?
The Pit Bull breed is statistically associated with the highest number of fatal dog attacks in the United States. According to studies and reports from organizations like DogsBite.org and CDC data, Pit Bulls are responsible for the majority of fatal attacks on humans, often accounting for 60-70% of dog-related fatalities annually, despite making up a smaller percentage of the dog population.
Other breeds that have been involved in fatal attacks include:
• Rottweilers
• German Shepherds
• Huskies
• Mastiffs
• American Bulldogs
You're citing ChatGPT. Language learning models are not verified fact sites. Jaysus H...
This is why nobody believes your whole argument: you attempt to substantiate it with this nonsense. It's bad when you use clickbait news, but it's patently ridiculous when you use "AI" which is neither artificial nor intelligent. You have no idea where it pulled these figures; they're as reputable as an anon poster's backside (the most frequent source of anti-pit bullies' "statistics"). In fact, the anon's arse is probably a more reputable source, as Jeff can track their location, at least, which is more than you'll get for citations from ChatfsckingGPTdamnedT
Have mercy...
Omg you’re claiming chatgpt is wrong?? Ok then. I know science is scary to people like you. Wow.
And now you're claiming chatGPT is science? Science is amazing. I'd love to see some actual scientific research and scientifically-verified information to support your claim.
But ChatGPT isn't where you go for that. ChatGPT is where a computer regurgitates the scrapings of stolen writings and barfs out something resembling a reasonable answer to your question. It specifically says "ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info." and, since you believe it, when I asked it "are you ever wrong" it puked out the following:
"Yes, I can be wrong. While I strive to provide accurate and helpful information, I can make mistakes for a variety of reasons. These include errors in the data I've been trained on, misunderstandings of your question, or limitations in my ability to interpret certain contexts. I also might be out of date on more recent information (my training data goes up to September 2021, though I’ve received some updates since then). If you ever notice something off, feel free to point it out, and I’ll do my best to clarify or correct it!"
So it's outdated, unscientific, potentially completely erroneous drivel. Kinda like most of what you post here, so I can see why you're a fan.