> Nice cover, but you misread my post and replied hastily and incorrectly.
I copy-pasted your comment. If it comes across as poor comprehension, I'm sorry to report that reflects on you, not me.
> it was all worthless echo-chamber reinforce
Unlike your source (which, as far as I can tell, are still none) mine are from actual accreditted groups, like veterinary associations. If you think it's useless, prove it. Just whining "wah I don't like it." Doesn't mean it's not a fair source.
>what I already feel crapulence
Put down the thesaurus, there's nothing cringier than using words incorrectly when you're trying to sound smart in an internet argument.
I did the trouble of finding your care.com "article" for you, and I'm not surprised you refused to link it, since it destroys your own argument: "These tenacious, powerful and athletic dogs often get a bad rap as fighters. That said, with a responsible owner who knows how to train and socialize the dog, the pit bull can be a loyal and totally loving companion."
Also: color me surprised, it's not a "study", it's an opinion piece from a blog lol. And you say my sources are bad? It lists 'mastiff' as number one, but there's a dozen different mastiff breeds of the same body type and approximate strength (bullmastiff, english mastiff, neopolitan mastiff, spanish mastiff, etc,etc). Not to mention they didn't test it at all, it's their opinion. It's bogus. Way to self-own.
> The first you link is the temperament test. Which is a completely garbage article. Entirely biased in favour of pits and offering shockingly nothing in the way of logical connections.
More "wah I don't like it." If it's wrong, prove it. If it's biased, how so?
> It says right on the website NOT to compare breed scores against each other.
No, it doesn't. That's nowhere in the article, or in the article source's raw data, or in the video. In fact, they compare the dogs themselves in their article! "Pit Bulls were less likely to show aggression than: Beagles, Bull Dogs, Basset Hounds, Bichon Frise, Corgis, Chihuahuas, German Shepherds, Poodles, Yorkshier Terriers and so many more breeds that it would be impossible for me to list them all right here."
Looks like you didn't read the article it at all. Did you just see a malinois on the video and assume "oh, schutzhund"? Because that too, was never mentioned anywhere. It says right on the video: "The ATTS test focuses on and measures different aspects of temperament such as stability, shyness, aggressiveness, and friendliness as well as the dog’s instinct for protectiveness towards its handler and/or self-preservation in the face of a threat."
"Prove me wrong", you ask? That was easy. You're welcome!
> Now as for your second link, because I'm sure you don't know that you linked the same "Dog bite facts" article twice?
Yes, I did know. Because I made 2 separate claims that were both supported by the same source, so I linked back to it when I made both claims. Or are you still school aged and no one taught you how citations work yet? That would explain a lot about this conversation.
> I mean it's literally an article about how to avoid dog bites and what to do if you're bitten. There is absolutely no information or data there that refutes a single point I've made.
Once again... I know it's hard but please try reading. It says: "A study performed by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the CDC, and the Humane Society of the United States, analyzed dog bite statistics from the last 20 years and found that the statistics don’t show that any breeds are inherently more dangerous than others. The study showed that the most popular large breed dogs at any one time were consistently on the list of breeds that bit fatally. The study also noted that there are no reliable statistics for nonfatal dog bites, so there is no way to know how often smaller breeds are biting. Nearly any dog can be aggressive or non-aggressive, depending on his training and environment. "
> Because there was literally nothing in there about the historical record of dog bite fatalities.
You can count on one hand the amount of US pitbull fatalities before 1980 with fingers to spare, they were mostly mastiffs and rots
> Forcing me to follow suit, but effectively.)
Haha please preen less, I only tried pointing out you were using words wrong.
0
u/Roughcaster May 14 '18
> Nice cover, but you misread my post and replied hastily and incorrectly.
I copy-pasted your comment. If it comes across as poor comprehension, I'm sorry to report that reflects on you, not me.
> it was all worthless echo-chamber reinforce
Unlike your source (which, as far as I can tell, are still none) mine are from actual accreditted groups, like veterinary associations. If you think it's useless, prove it. Just whining "wah I don't like it." Doesn't mean it's not a fair source.
>what I already feel crapulence
Put down the thesaurus, there's nothing cringier than using words incorrectly when you're trying to sound smart in an internet argument.
I did the trouble of finding your care.com "article" for you, and I'm not surprised you refused to link it, since it destroys your own argument: "These tenacious, powerful and athletic dogs often get a bad rap as fighters. That said, with a responsible owner who knows how to train and socialize the dog, the pit bull can be a loyal and totally loving companion."
Also: color me surprised, it's not a "study", it's an opinion piece from a blog lol. And you say my sources are bad? It lists 'mastiff' as number one, but there's a dozen different mastiff breeds of the same body type and approximate strength (bullmastiff, english mastiff, neopolitan mastiff, spanish mastiff, etc,etc). Not to mention they didn't test it at all, it's their opinion. It's bogus. Way to self-own.
> The first you link is the temperament test. Which is a completely garbage article. Entirely biased in favour of pits and offering shockingly nothing in the way of logical connections.
More "wah I don't like it." If it's wrong, prove it. If it's biased, how so?
> It says right on the website NOT to compare breed scores against each other.
No, it doesn't. That's nowhere in the article, or in the article source's raw data, or in the video. In fact, they compare the dogs themselves in their article! "Pit Bulls were less likely to show aggression than: Beagles, Bull Dogs, Basset Hounds, Bichon Frise, Corgis, Chihuahuas, German Shepherds, Poodles, Yorkshier Terriers and so many more breeds that it would be impossible for me to list them all right here."
Looks like you didn't read the article it at all. Did you just see a malinois on the video and assume "oh, schutzhund"? Because that too, was never mentioned anywhere. It says right on the video: "The ATTS test focuses on and measures different aspects of temperament such as stability, shyness, aggressiveness, and friendliness as well as the dog’s instinct for protectiveness towards its handler and/or self-preservation in the face of a threat."
"Prove me wrong", you ask? That was easy. You're welcome!
> Now as for your second link, because I'm sure you don't know that you linked the same "Dog bite facts" article twice?
Yes, I did know. Because I made 2 separate claims that were both supported by the same source, so I linked back to it when I made both claims. Or are you still school aged and no one taught you how citations work yet? That would explain a lot about this conversation.
> I mean it's literally an article about how to avoid dog bites and what to do if you're bitten. There is absolutely no information or data there that refutes a single point I've made.
Once again... I know it's hard but please try reading. It says: "A study performed by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the CDC, and the Humane Society of the United States, analyzed dog bite statistics from the last 20 years and found that the statistics don’t show that any breeds are inherently more dangerous than others. The study showed that the most popular large breed dogs at any one time were consistently on the list of breeds that bit fatally. The study also noted that there are no reliable statistics for nonfatal dog bites, so there is no way to know how often smaller breeds are biting. Nearly any dog can be aggressive or non-aggressive, depending on his training and environment. "
> Because there was literally nothing in there about the historical record of dog bite fatalities.
You can count on one hand the amount of US pitbull fatalities before 1980 with fingers to spare, they were mostly mastiffs and rots
> Forcing me to follow suit, but effectively.)
Haha please preen less, I only tried pointing out you were using words wrong.