Reply to Our dog played with a beautiful Pitt lab mix at the dog park yesterday

Forum Index » Pets

Reply to "Our dog played with a beautiful Pitt lab mix at the dog park yesterday "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Pit Bulls are killers.

https://bestlifeonline.com/most-dangerous-dog-breeds-2025/[/quote]

NP. Totally agree but every single thing posted showing the evidence is viewed as ‘click bait’ by the unhinged pit bull supporter. I think there’s mostly just one on here, but she posts and rants a lot and insults everyone who doesn’t agree with her. I once saw an op Ed posted on here by an ER doctor of 30 years who said he’d seen a dramatic increase of fatal to serious dog bites that corresponded with the increase in the pit bull population (and all serious bites he saw were from pits- far worse than even typical ‘aggressive’ breeds like German shepherds). Pit bull lady went nuts as always, claiming it was ‘fake news’ and ‘click bait’, and that ‘idiot’ dog owners who don’t ’train’ properly are the problem, and of course claiming that chihuahuas and Goldens are just as dangerous. Her other go to argument is that pits aren’t a defined breed so there’s no point in trying to ban them.

Shes just unhinged [/quote]

"She" is several people, of which I'm one, but the anti-hysteria posters are not all me. Y'all need to learn what makes a credible source and what is, in fact, clickbait (like the article cited). It's not just you; an entire political party has exploited people's ignorance and willingness to believe the 'truthiness' of things that sound legit, especially when they agree with how you already feel. You should check that as a matter of practice, beyond just here in the pets forum. I don't usually bother trying to point that out to people anymore because it makes me sad to realize how many of you can't actually think critically, despite being willing to argue (and attack others) as if you can.

"Pits" aren't a defined breed. This isn't one poster's opinion, this is actual fact. When you say that people sound "unhinged" for pointing this out, you're actually projecting your own unhinged argument/position. If you can't even clearly identify what a "pit bull" is, your position on "pit bulls" is meaningless.

As for the medical article, I remember that. My argument on that thread, which is consistent throughout these threads, is this: In order to accurately gauge the risk from "pit bulls" you need a few variables nobody making the "all pits are killers" argument ever seems to have. 1) An accurate count of the total number of bites, and some form of classification. "Bites" aren't "maulings" aren't "fatalities". Please specify what you're counting. 2) An accurate count of the total number of "pit bulls". All breeds under the "pit bull" umbrella? All "pit mixes"? All dogs that look pit? 3) An accurate count of the total number of all dogs, also separated out by types/breeds/mixes/whatever you're measuring.

If you can't understand why these facts are necessary to have statistically-relevant data about this problem, please ask someone else to help you, or go find one of the other "unhinged" comments I made carefully trying to explain this. I'm kinda tired of trying to help people who don't bother engaging in good faith. As for your need to attack me, well, that says pretty much all we need to know about you now, doesn't it? Weak attack, from an intellectually weak person. I'm sorry you're struggling so hard that lashing out at strangers on the internet is an outlet for your psychological trouble. I hope you have a better day![/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics