You say “alright”, like you are responding to what I’m saying. And you are not at all. Then you are so increadibly dishonest it is unbelivable. The study you quote as saying
As in recent years, Rottweilers were the most commonly reported breed involved in fatal attacks, followed by pit bull-type dogs
As support for your opinion that pit bulls are dangerous. It has a preamble statement to the article, which if you read, you would not be referencing this article. It says:
In contrast to what has been reported in the news media, the data from this study CANNOT be used to infer any breed-specific risk for dog bite fatalities (e.g., neither pit bull-type dogs nor Rottweilers can be said to be more “dangerous” than any other breed based on this study).
and that is their emphasis.
You cannot cherry pick data or quotes from studies to try and claim they support something the studies themselves say they cannot be used to support. It is missleading, it is anti-scientific, and so increadibly dishonest.
Something supporting your broader claim may be found in one of the other studies. I’m not saying it may not. But I would not trust a word of what you say about anything. You ignore the critique I bring up. Try to gish gallop your way out of it, ending up just lying in the process.
And nothing has anything to do with my original issue with your post. You just made it worse all on yoir own.
Are you saying this just because you are angry, or your actual rational conclusion? Because my claim was that the infograph used a bullshit source, and I doubted the figure due to it. Then you provided another source from another org, AVMA, stating a different number, proving that the graph was bull. Not only that, that source organisation, AVMA, was also the same that I used to claim that “Dog bite org” looked shady.
What claim do you want me to source? That “dog bite org” appears to be bull? That is basically the only attempt at a claim I have made. Well, AVMA is my source then. You linked them. Read them.
You say “alright”, like you are responding to what I’m saying. And you are not at all. Then you are so increadibly dishonest it is unbelivable. The study you quote as saying
As support for your opinion that pit bulls are dangerous. It has a preamble statement to the article, which if you read, you would not be referencing this article. It says:
and that is their emphasis.
You cannot cherry pick data or quotes from studies to try and claim they support something the studies themselves say they cannot be used to support. It is missleading, it is anti-scientific, and so increadibly dishonest.
Something supporting your broader claim may be found in one of the other studies. I’m not saying it may not. But I would not trust a word of what you say about anything. You ignore the critique I bring up. Try to gish gallop your way out of it, ending up just lying in the process.
And nothing has anything to do with my original issue with your post. You just made it worse all on yoir own.
Dishonesty is you thinking you have a point while not providing a single source. Get off that high horse.
Cherry picking on top of it all, you’re a clown.
Are you saying this just because you are angry, or your actual rational conclusion? Because my claim was that the infograph used a bullshit source, and I doubted the figure due to it. Then you provided another source from another org, AVMA, stating a different number, proving that the graph was bull. Not only that, that source organisation, AVMA, was also the same that I used to claim that “Dog bite org” looked shady.
What claim do you want me to source? That “dog bite org” appears to be bull? That is basically the only attempt at a claim I have made. Well, AVMA is my source then. You linked them. Read them.