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.
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.
jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
Again, you are willfully misunderstanding what the statistic is stating:
Here are the total number of PEOPLE killed by dogs.
Of that number, here’s how many PEOPLE were killed by each breed.
This isn’t tracking bites, or overall attacks, it’s tracking human deaths.
A similar stat would be tracking vehicular accident deaths, if in a year you have accidents involving “brand x” accounting for more vehicular fatalities than all other brands combined, that points to a massive, massive problem with the brand.
It doesn’t matter how many cars there are, that’s not what the stat is tracking.
guynamedzero@piefed.zeromedia.vip 38 minutes ago
Then replace every time I said “bite” with “someone died”. That doesn’t change anything about my argument or the validity of it.
In your car example, that is exactly wrong, let’s say that 99 out of 100 cars are Toyota Corollas, and as a whole, they get in 50 fatal accidents every year, but the remaining 1 car is a Ford F150 which got in 1 fatal accident every year. Does this mean that corollas are more dangerous? No! It just means that there are more corollas and therefore more opportunities to kill.
The correct way to represent this is as a percentage of each car brand. 50 accidents divided by 99 corollas is a little less than 50%. 1 accidents divided by 1 F150 is about 100%. According to this, F150’s are actually more dangerous because 100% of them get in fatal accidents, whereas only 50% of corollas get in fatal accidents.