Jesus Christ dude you post like you’re high on speed. I’ll admit it’s actually hard to follow your stream of consciousness sometimes.

Anyway, you’ve made the claim that there are more pitbulls than any other dogs. And you claim you are arguing on the side of the scientific consensus. Show us these stats and the science you are referring to then. We’ll wait.

Btw, I wasn't ignoring this, I just have no idea how to properly reply to it:

Me: Hey guys you know those numbers you've quoted for close to a decade, that underpin your entire stance? Well, I educated myself and learned they are 99% made up and fictitious.

You: Yeah ok but what have you done to educate yourself?

Also,

That's not what "responsibility" means in that context. It's synonymous with "burden of proof", not with saying that people aren't allowed to post any dumb **** they want.

How do you people not understand anything about anything?

I don't post like I'm high on speed. That is gibberish you're saying because you feel intimidated and confused, and you can't think of a better insult.

You can't follow any of it. That's like, the entire theme here. I know you guys like to insult people and call them dumb when you feel challenged and confused and intimidated, but what I'm about to type is merely a relevant scientific observation: you're not the dumbest person I've ever interacted with, but you are the dumbest of the subset of people filled to the brim with Big Dunning Kruger Energy and eager to show it.

Watch.




I haven't made this "claim". I've said that it is the logical conclusion and consensus absent any data showing otherwise. You don't understand the very concept of the subtext underlying scientific inquiry.

Pitbulls are domesticated dogs. They behave like domesticated dogs. They are relatively big and strong enough to inflict serious damage on people. In northern climates, like, the True North lol, northern Alaska and Canada, there are no pitbull bites/maulings because there are no pitbulls. Nobody would keep a bald ass pitbull in that climate. All the bites and attacks are done by huskies and malamutes and similar dogs.

Now, you won't understand any of that. A reasonably bright and open-minded child would, but you won't.

https://www.avma.org/resources-tools...ion-role-breed

And depressingly enough, maybe not that either.

p.s. tangential:

Astute readers will note that you abandoned calling me dumb and shifted to saying I do drugs, so, I'll just say that lol you're going in the vague direction of getting warmer.

Yes, I'm asking HOW you educated yourself. I told you how I educated myself. I don't even know what numbers you think are incorrect, because you have not told us.
I gave numbers from two pro-pair bull sites. Are those the numbers you think are wrong? If so, please provide references with higher numbers.

And I understood responsibility in the exact way you meant it. I even spoke about proof. I know exactly what you meant, and you are wrong. There is no burden of proof needed to recommend that pit bulls be banned, or even to enact laws banning them. Do you seriously think that lawmakers only pass laws based on rigorous proof?

Also, you said that pit bulls are a vast majority of dogs in existence and "it is the logical conclusion and consensus absent any data showing otherwise". Everyone else here strongly disagrees, so I don't know who you think has formed this consensus. I can't even imagine that anyone who has lived in the US for a year could possibly think that pit bulls are a majority of dogs here. Do you have even ONE source saying they are a majority?
If you have posted one before, please do me the kindness of reposting. Thank you.

If you don't believe anything else I say believe this. Absolutely no one is "intimidated" by you here. That's such a weird thing to think. I'd be super interested in the psychoanalysis of someone who thinks other people are intimidated by their performance in an online forum debate. I say tongue in cheek you post like you're on speed because, as has been mentioned by at least one other person in this thread, instead of one post you have like 5 or 6 in a row that come in quick succession almost like you are just posting new things as thoughts pop into your head.

On to the topic at hand:


First of all, you clearly did make that claim. Second of all, there is data showing otherwise (you probably just disagree with it): https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/do...g-breeds-2022/

Now you are more than welcome to provide your statistics as well. But clearly we aren't dealing with a situation of absent data so you are incorrect about that.

I do appreciate you finally providing a source for your side of the argument. It had been a long time that you had basically just been poo-pooing other studies people posted without sharing anything of your own. I find it interesting that you dismiss all the other studies posted in this thread and yet you are so convinced that the entire scientific community is on your side because of the source you shared. I feel like confirmation bias could play a part in why this is. I will say, I won't simply dismiss the source you shared and will include it along with all of the other studies I've read when forming my opinion on this subject.

Ok pussy.

I don't think one needs to take amphetamines to... think thoughts. I'm not sure you thought this one through (maybe you need some amphetamines).


Yes plz.

You weirdly used scare quotes around "intimidated" so you're familiar with the concept existing, but you didn't seem to notice me putting scare quotes around "claim" when I said I didn't make that claim. So I'm not sure you know how they work.

But ok, fine. I "am" "making" "that" "claim".


Oh **** lol ok you gotta be ****ing with me at this point. Which, take that as a compliment and a walkback of my previous statements about your babybrain.

A "pit bull" is not a breed! The majority of dogs are not breeds! This doesn't mean we can't define what a pit bull is (in fact that makes it easier!) it just means that going to the AKC, an aggregator of purebred dogs, has nothing to do with this.



That's not how this works. Each side doesn't just make up numbers and whichever sides feels they're correct the strongest wins. Absent data means we default to currently understood science. And that's EVERYTHING. Just google it! Find a source that says "pit bulls" (i.e. like all of the baker's dozen of purebred recognized breeds along with any mixes and mutts and any dog that kinda sorta looks like a pit bull and throw on some more dogs with semi-brachycephalic-snouts and you know what toss some more dogs on top of the pile cuz why not) make up some disproportionately small % of all dogs relative to their bite/maim/kill statistics, other than dogsbit.org and animals24-7.org. You can't because they don't exist. Even many anti-pit-bull people with some sense of scientific integrity won't go that far because they know how absurd it is; they just hope people like yourself erroneously fill in the blanks.

Nobody has provided any studies. The trauma center studies do not pertain to this argument; ChatGPT explained it with the Toyota Corolla analogy!

As for the source I provided, it's not just that one, it's every source. That's how these quasi-binary arguments work. If you say the world is flat, and I don't agree and maybe say lol that's crazy, assume that my stance is that the world is round. Likewise, assume that every single source you could find on the internet, like the AVMA link I posted, implicitly does not agree with you. They just need to retain some professionalism and can't call you all babybrain lunatics.

Lol sorry, maybe "ok pussy" isn't the most diplomatic. I do appreciate this thread because brain-sharpening content can come from anywhere. I had not thought of the following thought experiment before:

Unless I'm missing something I only see two of the purebred "pit bulls" listed:





That's fine though, we can just use those.

To anybody: find a source that details the bite/kill/maim numbers of those two purebred groups (or of all the purebred groups, though as mentioned I can't find the others in that list). This is not about accurate population % numbers, just the total bite/kill/maim numbers for those groups, either as a whole or even better, by each group.

Typical pitbull supporter type of language.

I'm not the only one who commented on this. You brain dump in multiple posts one after the other like you are on some uppers or something. Again, not the only one to point this out.

You can extrapolate the data from purebreed popularity though. Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier and American Pitbull Terrier are the three dogs usually classifed under the umbrella term pitbull. They aren't super high on the list. So unless you think these dogs are ****ing like Nick Cannon then it's quite unlikely even mixes of these would be the most popular dog. Much more likely mixes of the more popular breeds would be more common.


I'll respond you this with what chillrob said:

To use your own term, you sound like a "babybrain" when you pretend we could never know if pitbulls (or pitbull type dogs) were the majority of dogs or not. They are clearly not. If that's the hard stance you are taking then there is no point in continuing this debate.

You're right that we probably can't get an exact percentage, but you also don't need an exact number to determine if pitbulls are more dangerous. As chillrob pointed out even the most supportive of pitbull sites listed 20% as the upper number. You also can just like go outside and look around. You'll quickly realize that dogs that look like what we'd consider pitbulls are not the most common dogs. So it could be any number between 6% and 20% but if pitbulls are generating higher than 20% of the bites (which I believe they were in all of those studies) you could wonder if they might just be more dangerous.

The clear difference here is you believe you can't quantify the amount of pitbulls there are. The thing is even sites run by the most fervent of pitbull supporters do provide these statistics. It suits your purpose to believe you can't though, because if you can't define even a range then for any pitbull study (like the ones I posted) you can just dismiss because we're missing the x variable.

This is dog on dog attacks, but I think it is still relevant to their dangerousness: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...atal-1.4348090

They even have both numbers you care about. In Edmonton 3% of dogs were American Staffordshire terriers but they were responsible for nearly 30% of all reported fatal dog on dog attacks.

Although it seems they did take a year off in 2015 from killing other dogs. So they deserve credit for that.

Yes, you told us that one Time Magazine article was incorrect. You didn't provide any evidence that it was wrong, but I took you at your word.

You keep saying "the numbers" are wrong, when no one has defended the Time Magazine article or used it as any evidence. If the numbers in that article are the only ones you think are wrong, that doesn't make a difference to anyone, because we (or at least I) had never read that article anyway.

Are there any numbers that people here may be using that you think are wrong? If so, what is your evidence? Do you really expect us to take the word of someone who just jumps in the middle of things here and starts telling everyone they can't read?

And btw, you do post like you were on speed. Or possibly cocaine, I'm not a doctor.

Can we talk about this? Because it seems to be the same theme that is giving you trouble in the actual dog discussion.

What did you think saying "Again, not the only one to point this out" was accomplishing? Is that rigorous proof in your mind, like a fellow babybrain cosigned, therefore...?

Because,



I didn't say that pit bulls are the majority of all dogs. Chillrob either made that up, or intentionally or accidentally misunderstood (I had to search to even find a thing that I think could be the misunderstood statement). And you just went with it despite his track record.

If I was a babybrain pussy I might get mad and say something like "if that's what you insist on continually doing then there is no point in continuing this debate" but honestly it's fine, it even makes all this that much more interesting.

Another example in the same post:

His analysis that it was safe to conclude this is the "upper number" was based on his own babybrain cosigning it, and I even made a whole post showing why that shouldn't be trusted:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...postcount=4246

Lol. Which you either didn't read or understand, and instead just went with it, again.

The vast majority (<--look, that's the word!) of this "debate" has been addressing things you people have either misunderstood or just invented in your mind brain palaces, and just went with. Which, to me, that's totally fine! I'm just pointing it out to help with what might be a potential sources of frustration on your end.

I did not make that up. You have said in this thread that most dogs in the US are those that are generally called pit bulls, and others called you on it before I did. I can't find it to quote, because you have posted pages and pages of crap.

But if you do not believe they are a majority, why don't you just give us your best estimate? What percentage of the dogs in the US would be called "pit bulls" by the typical US citizen?

Yes, I read that post. Somehow you believe that because two websites (both pro-pitbull) gave different estimates, the actual number must be far higher than the larger of the two estimates.

The 20% estimate is the largest I could find online anywhere. If you can find a larger one, please share it.

You keep thinking none of us can read or understand your brilliance, when really we understand very well what you are saying, we just disagree with it.

For example, the following isn't scientific but it is pretty funny:

Haha. Lol.

Me: (not actually) The majority of the dogs are pit bulls.

You all: That's crazy! Also, omg there are so many pit bulls everywhere!

Somehow, that literally was not at all the point of my post. Not even close!

I legit actually can't even begin to figure out how you could arrive at that conclusion.




Chillrob still batting ~1.000 in somehow reading the opposite.

Wait.

I said to KingOfFelt, not to you, that he hadn't read the post.

Does any of this give you any pause?

Yes, you told KingOfFelt about my "babybrain", so I decided to reply to the post.

Does knowing you are so "misunderstood" give you any pause to consider that maybe you're not explaining yourself very well? No one else in these forums seems to think I can't read or don't understand anything they post.

Have you even considered telling us exactly what you think, so we don't need to figure it out?

I just asked you for your opinion about the percentage of pit bulls in the US. You chide everyone else for not answering every single question you ask, but you can't answer that one for me? It shouldn't take a lot of work, just give us your best idea, based on evidence, studies, or just your own observations. Then maybe we won't misunderstand how many pit bulls you think there are.

If you can't even do that (type a two digit number and press a few buttons), I'm finished interacting with you.

Ok, Chillrob, put a pin in all that other stuff above.

Do you honestly not know you're doing this? I can't actually figure it out. On its face it would seem like standard trolling but that feels like too neat an answer.

There's no way you thought I wouldn't notice this, but maybe you're performing for other people?

Or, maybe it's just sincere, but that seems totally wild.

This is what I mean:

I didn't tell you that "that one" Time Magazine article was incorrect. I told you that the Time Magazine article was the highest profile example of using those incorrect statistics, which come from the dogsbite and animals247 website. I further told you that the statistics are everywhere, and any example of them being used anywhere leads back to those two sources (really, one, they're the same source) because nobody else has had the gall to make such a ridiculous claim.

This might seem like an honest misunderstanding on your part, but it leads to this:

See how it works? First you misconstrue the idea that I was only referring to "that one" article, in order to go on to say that nobody has ever defended the article or used it in any way, when the point wasn't that specific article rather the statistics that are in it. So while I'm obviously referring to the idea of the statistics, whether they were found on the Time article, or another article, or even the websites themselves, this "misunderstanding" allows you to type what you did, and discredit my posts about the statistics.

It's an incredibly bush league rhetorical trick but I imagine it works on the KingOfFelt and Phresh types.

All that aside though, lol:



This thread was dead for like three years until it was necro'd in September of 2015, and might've died again if it wasn't for noted critical thinker JayTeeMe dropping in with the stats, and boy, it was off to the races. This thread went from a bunch of dudes sporadically saying "I looove pit bulls" or "I hate pit bulls sooo much" and turned into a Scientific Endeavor based on that those stats.



Lol why on earth would you think I was just making this up?

Well now you're just nitpicking about the difference between "the article" and "the statistics in the article".

But whatever, so you seem to think all published pit bull statistics are wrong. So what are you doing to determine that?
If there are no accurate statistics on pit bulls, do you really think that implies we should not have the opinion that they should be banned?
It would just tell me that we have to go by our gut feelings based on anecdotal evidence if we really have no way of getting good numbers.

I don't need to discredit your posts, you're doing that quite well on your own. You're like the Arguments Clinic in the old Monty Python sketch. You just give contradictions and think we should consider them well-thought out arguments. How about, for once, you stop telling us how stupid we are and instead tell us what you believe. Maybe we'll see the light. It's unlikely, but more likely than it happening from what you have been doing.

p.s.

lol that's wild