They are bread to fight and so they aren’t family pets. At least until we breed the instinct out of them again

You fuckers are really upvoting someone who spelled bred as “Bread”?

Haaaaahahahah

Y’all suck on this topic as much as Redditors do and that’s saying something.

I upvoted what they’re saying regardless of their spelling because I’m not a fuckhead who thinks an obvious spelling mistake obviates overwhelming statistical evidence that they’re correct.

Unrelated, but I saw an anti-Iran-war protest sign the other day that used the wrong form of “its”; suppose I’m pro-war now.

A look at dog bite statistics over only 5 years in 1 city and they don’t even specify how those dog breeds are identified does not prove what you think it does.

A look at dog bite statistics over only 5 years in 1 city

Oh yeah, only 51% of all dog bite injuries for which a breed could be identified presenting to a large pediatric hospital over five years in the sixth-most populous city in the US is basically nothing. I’m sure pit bulls are just 51% or thereabouts of all dog ownership in Philadelphia anyway.

Meanwhile, I find it interesting you said: “they don’t even specify how those dog breeds are identified does not prove what you think it does.” (Cool blatant grammar mistake, by the way; enjoying your glass house?) Because all I gave you was the condensed version on PubMed. Crazy how you totally read the full methodology you didn’t have in like 30 seconds before dismissing it. The obvious and only answer, of course, was “the patients told the doctors”, you stupid fuck.

More than 30 different offending breeds were documented in the medical records. Unfortunately, these data were missing or not known in over half of the medical records (51.2 percent). Of the 269 cases for which a breed was indicated in the medical record, the majority of injuries were caused by pit bull terriers (50.9 percent), Rottweilers (8.9 percent), and mixed breeds involving at least one of the two aforementioned breeds (6.0 percent) (Table 1). Most patients were familiar with the dog involved in the attack (68.8 percent).

I can only imagine the 282 unidentified dogs were those vicious golden retrievers. They come out of nowhere, and they’re gone before you know what bit you. They’re fucking bloodthirsty, man.

Assuming the 282 unidentified dogs were all pitbulls is a logical fallacy.

Assuming I’m assuming the 282 unidentified dogs were all pitbulls is the most batshit strawman you could’ve taken away from what I said.

I don’t even know if “strawman” applies, though; you might be illiterate enough to actually read it that way. The obvious reading is that I was jokingly preempting you trying to use the 282 unidentified dogs to weasel your way into a “God of the gaps”-style argument to assert some bias against pitbulls in identification so major that it invalidates the argument.

I can only imagine the 282 unidentified dogs were those vicious golden retrievers. They come out of nowhere, and they’re gone before you know what bit you. They’re fucking bloodthirsty, man.

Yeah, crazy how I read your sarcasm as insinuating those 282 unidentified dogs were pitbulls. Gee whiz, I wonder how I could have possibly come to that conclusion?

Gee whiz, I wonder how I could have possibly come to that conclusion?

Maybe because your conception of literacy is narrow-mindedly focused on technical correctness instead of comprehension.