Reply to There was a pit bull on a plane with me yesterday

Forum Index » Pets

Reply to "There was a pit bull on a plane with me yesterday "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I mean, we do remember the stories of people getting mauled by pit bulls and "lab mixes," right?

Being in a enclosed, noisy environment with lots of strangers is a difficult situation for not properly socialized dog (i.e., fake service dog). I love dogs and have owned many GSDs through the years, and I absolutely would not want to sit next to an agitated pit bull, GSD, etc. A little yappy/snarly chihuahua in a carrier? Annoying, but not worrisome.[/quote]

You may have a point if this dog did anything but it did not according to op.  The sad thing is one good pit bull does not change anyone's opinions but one dog who mauls someone certainly does[/quote]

And yet, when you point out the name for that, bias, people go completely unhinged, convinced their biased opinion is some sort of hard truth or fact.

People are stupidly easy to manipulate, and not very good at checking their own thinking.[/quote]

I think you're the one who is manipulated since our bias is based on statistics and not our blind, stupid love for pitties.

https://www.google.com/search?q=which+dogs+are+statistically+more+aggressive&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=which+dogs+are+statis&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgBEAAYFhgeMgYIABBFGDkyCAgBEAAYFhgeMg0IAhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IAxAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMg0IBBAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgoIBRAAGIAEGKIEMgoIBhAAGIAEGKIEMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINzM3MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#cobssid=s[/quote]

Your link throws this as the first non-AI result: https://spotpet.com/blog/breed-tips/most-aggressive-dog-breeds

#1 on the list? Chihuahuas. And if you've ever owned or known one, you know that's hard facts.  :lol:

As for the "statistics" someone always trots out, the flaw in that logic has been pointed out repeatedly, by multiple credible sources: while you may be able to find high numbers of incidents involving "pit bulls", in order for them to be statistically significant, you'd need to know the total number of dogs being called "pit bulls" vs. the total number of each other breed represented. I have never been able to find this information.

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States
between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in
fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total
breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to
be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm

But by all means, continue to freak out about "pit bulls".  :roll: [/quote]

I knew you were going to bring up Chihuahuas which just shows further how dumb you are. While they might be more aggressive, they are most certainly not CAPABLE of inflicting the kind of damage that a pit bull. How many people died from a Chihuahua mauling vs. a pit bull mauling?

The insurance companies are definitely able to calculate the risk and will likely jack up your rates if you own a pit bull or any of the highly aggressive breeds. You might not even be able to get insurance if you own one of those dogs. But by all means, keep living in la la land where pitties are just misunderstood. I don't even care if you have 10 of them in your own home and they eat you for breakfast next Thursday. I just don't want to be on a plane next to one and that is my right.

[/quote]

PP provided you facts and stats, you clap back with nonsense and insults.

This is a you problem.[/quote]

hahahahaha well thanks for sock puppeting. But I provided stats and facts first. She provided nonsense. [/quote]

You linked to a google search, which the pp quoted and augmented. You clearly live in your own reality.[/quote]

Yeah, me and everyone else who knows statistical risks. I'll tell you what. I'll be convinced when you successfully negotiate the same homeowner's insurance rate for a pit pull and a doxon. Fair? Call your insurance company now and let me know what they tell you.[/quote]

A dachshund, you mean?  :roll:  The insurance [b]rate should be the exact same[/b]. I don't want to be bit by either, and I'll sue you for both.

But since you brought it up... the greater bite risk is the badger dog. While 'pit bulls' have a scary reputation, they're less likely to bite than the stubborn, willful, hard to train, antisocial weiner dog. Which, you know, you could've looked up. But you couldn't even figure out dachshund, so you decided to illustrate the "it's small so it's safe" fallacy.[/quote]

The rate is not the same and it should not be the same, of course. Statistically pit bulls have killed more people than any other dog breed. That is the reason!!! I'm done because talking to you is like talking to a wall. You don't live in the real world. You live in la la land. I have no more patience for your nonsense. [/quote]

There are no statistics that actually say this. Scroll up. Read. Educate yourself.

This thing that you pull where you refuse to actively participate in the thread but insist on continuing the thread makes you look completely ridiculous. [/quote]

You IDIOT.

https://www.google.com/search?q=dog+attacks+by+breed&rlz=1C1GCEX_enUS1048US1048&oq=dog+attaks+by+&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCQgBEAAYDRiABDIGCAAQRRg5MgkIARAAGA0YgAQyCQgCEAAYDRiABDIJCAMQABgNGIAEMgkIBBAAGA0YgAQyCQgFEAAYDRiABDIJCAYQABgNGIAEMgkIBxAAGA0YgAQyCQgIEAAYDRiABDIJCAkQABgNGIAE0gEIODAyNGowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#vhid=uhBiBxc9sK1-hM&vssid=_1fHRZ6qdM8uq5NoPt_Sq0QI_43[/quote]

Are you citing... the AI synopsis?  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

The Centers for Disease Control study “Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998” explains the inherent problems in attempting to calculate breed involvement in fatal attacks. The CDC further explained that a major flaw in the study was the inability to factor in total breed populations relative to breed-related fatalities. The CDC concluded that fatal attacks are so rare as to be statistically insignificant in addressing canine aggression"

How rare? https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/72/wr/mm7236a6.htm[/quote]

Your are willfully ignoring a 100 links telling you that pit bulls are responsible for most of the attacks and deaths. You are a ignorant moron and I don’t have any more energy to point out what every intelligent, sane person can find out with a simple Google search. [/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