Even if pit bulls are a minority of the population and the majority of attacks that doesn’t mean they’re aggressive, it shows there’s a correlation, but not a causation link. Read my other reply, but in short, this is the same argument racists assholes use to say black people are aggressive, because they’re a minority of the population but are the majority of homicide offenders.
I think this graphic should also be taking into account the number of owned dogs by breed, kinda like per capita. Because what if almost everyone owns pit bulls, and all the others are just outliers, then yeah, most attacks are by pit bulls because there’s more of them.
In my opinion, this would probably actually make pits look even worse, but it would actually be more representative of real data
Nibodhika@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
I think you’re the racist asshole comparing black people to dogs
Nibodhika@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You need to work on your reading comprehension, I compared arguments, not people. The two are an example of “a minority of a group causes the majority of the fatalities, therefore that group is dangerous”, showing an example of that same argument people can instinctively understand it’s wrong.
Flax_vert@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
Except no- it doesn’t.
Take a pitbull and a labrador. They aren’t simply the same animal with different colours.
Labradors were bred to assist fishermen in retrieving fish. So this would mean being controlled and obedient, not eating what they were sent to retrieve, etc.
Pitbulls were bred to fight other dogs- they were bred for fighting and destroying and that’s it. They’re essentially weapons that decide for themselves. Sure, any animal can be tamed, but it takes effort.
For your argument to work, you have to “concede” (although I wouldn’t use that term because it’s an outright lie) to the racist narrative or what have you that black people are inferior and have less control and are inherently less civilised than white people due to their race. So your argument is a racist one, because it assumes and only works that black people are significantly different to white people, like a different breed of human.
The differences between black people and white people in reality are negligible. They’re not different breeds, they’re both homosapiens. Essentially it would be like arguing black labradors are more violent than white labradors, which just simply isn’t true.
Not only that, but you’re trivialising the struggle of black people against racist oppression to that of people whining against their fighting dog being banned for good reason.
Worst of all, if they were the same argument, it’s like telling racists that comparing black people to white people is like comparing pitbulls to labradors, which would bolster their argument massively, as they’re completely different breeds of dog.
I urge you to recant your argument, you’re basically saying black people are like a more aggressive, dangerous, and less controlled breed of human compared to white people which is an absolutely vile, disgusting, and false thing to say.
davidagain@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Dude, you’ve spent a long time arguing from a point of view that fear of pitbulls is equivalent to racism.
Doing this is trivialising racism and painting a breed bred for agression and fighting as innocent victims of oppression.
It’s bogus and offensive and trivialises racism. Stop it.
Nibodhika@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
And I suppose you also think that in this comment I’m trivialising the struggles of pit bulls by comparing them to apples.
Bad logic is bad logic, whether applied to dogs, humans, apples or whatever. The fact that you can instinctively understand the argument is wrong when applied to people is the exact reason I used that, so people would understand it’s a bad argument that proves nothing.
davidagain@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Bad logic is bad logic, whether applied to dogs, humans, apples or whatever.
Racism is racism, whether it’s direct and obvious or just casually equating ethnic minorities to the most feared “dangerous” dogs whilst claiming that you’re “just explaining logical errors”.
No, you don’t get to pretend you didn’t make an awful and offensive analogy (based on your irrational belief that the pitbulls are falsely maligned).
If the logic is as flawed as you claim, there must be hundreds of analogies you can draw that aren’t racist and don’t equate black people in the USA with pitbulls.
jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The number of dogs doesn’t matter, it’s tracking the number of human beings killed by the breed.
Yeah, Chihuahua might bite you, they aren’t going to kill you.
guynamedzero@piefed.zeromedia.vip 2 weeks ago
What? The number of dogs absolutely matters. This is like, basic statistics.
Again, what we’re shown here is the number of fatal injuries, but we don’t necessarily know the distribution of dog breeds. Imagine testing this by putting a child in a room with one of each breed of dog and seeing if they get attacked, except with one breed we put in 200 dogs instead of just one, odds are that yeah, one (or multiple) of those dogs is aggressive because there’s so many of them.
This example is basically what the data above represents, it doesn’t consider that maybe pits actually very rarely bite people, but there’s just so many pits that more bites happen.
It is my personal opinion that pits are a more dangerous breed, but I won’t let that cloud my vision of accurately representing data.
GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca 2 weeks ago
For this to be reflective of an even amount of bites per number of each breed of dog owned, half the dogs owned would have to be pit bulls. That doesn’t match my very casual observations. This site, whose accuracy and validity I haven’t bothered to verify in any way, puts pit bulls at about 20% of the dogs sent to shelters. It seems very likely that the dog fatalities are outsized relative to the number of pit bulls owned in America.
guynamedzero@piefed.zeromedia.vip 2 weeks ago
I totally agree with that. The problem is that this graphic doesn’t represent it. The fact that it’s not an equal #/each is exactly what I want to be shown, but the problem is that this graphic doesn’t show that
jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The number of dogs is irrelevant because the statistic is counting human deaths by dogs.
You wouldn’t say “well, how many people are there?” either.
yes_this_time@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Think about it in the extremes.
If there were a billion poodles out in the world, and they caused 10 human deaths.
And there were 50 terriers out there and they caused 10 human deaths.
Which breed would you buy for your grandmother?
For every five terriers out there, one is killing someone on average. I would go with the Poodle.
guynamedzero@piefed.zeromedia.vip 2 weeks ago
You haven’t made any argument against the information presented. You will not get a response from me unless you actually respond instead of repeating the same statement.
Nibodhika@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Sure it matters, if you don’t normalize for sample size your data is meaningless. Here’s a similar example:
I have a farm that produces both red and green apples, last harvest I had to throw away 100 red apples because they went bad, but only 10 green apples for the same reason.
You would think that red apples spoil 10x easier than green ones, but you’re missing the crucial information that my farm produced 10.000 red apples and 1.000 green ones, so in both cases it represented 1% of the whole amount.
This could be the same thing, if there are more Pitbulls than other races it would be expected that they bite more in absolute numbers.
velma@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
A lot of mixed breeds are labeled as “pit bulls” which can skew the data as well. There’s several different types of “pit bulls” like American Staffordshire Terrier.
And as another commenter pointed out, this graph is coming from a biased source.
jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
If you look at the chart “mixed breed” is it’s own category.
kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
And didn’t disclose how many there were of those. For all we know, that was the vast majority of cases.
Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
i have seen posts on other platforms of people being obsessed with the GSD, but they dont want to deal with the high energy of the breed, so they try to create new 'mixes with them to make them mellow and call it a “certified breed”.