You provided the source for that quote. So, yeah, technically true, I guess!

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.

It is not much better. Note that one of the sources of the one commenting explicitly states

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).

Which is the commenters purpose in referencing that study. The study explicitly says it does not support their opinion.

For anyone reading the above comment, please note the dishonesty in the presentation of the studies. One of them states:

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).

So just be careful in taking anything in the comment at face value.

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.

I don’t see it as the person you are replying to is talking about the ratio, but the absolute number. Even if it was the case, your “no” to their statement is just wrong. It is literally the next sentence in your quote:

Pit Bulls were responsible for approximately 66% of fatal dog attacks in 2023. Historically, they have accounted for 66% of fatal attacks—346 out of 521 deaths between 2005 and 2019

Those are the numbers in the infographic. That is a 12ish year period. “No”, is just such a misleading statement. And by your own admission, that is the numbers by “Dog Bite org”.

Do you even read what you post? Yes, I claimed that the source is bad (not necessarily “invalid”, but unreliable). You then said it is not the actual source. I asked you to clarify the actual source, and you: 1. Provide a source contradicting yours, with exactly the same backing as I had for doubting it: AVMA 2. Imply that “DogBite” is the source, hence not only contradicting yourself but also a separate source you used. This is bare minimum critical thinking skills missing here. What I think you are doing is pursuing the subject with a confirmation bias. You believe pit bulls to be dangerous, hence every source which supports that is valid. But that appears not to be true, by the data you yourself have provided. They both support your claim to some degree, but the data does not agree. It is nonsense.

Sorry, I underestimated your reading comprehension. Inthe infographic you provided, what does the “Dog Bite org” refer to? I’m not asking for other stats. I’m not asking for other sources. I’m asking about the infographic you provided. So, please, go on.

Also, I am not claiming to provide anything. I just have some doubt on the source material on that infographic.

None of the linked screenshots appear to be a proper source, certainly not mentioning “Dog Bite org”. The first one seems to be from wikipedia, which is fine, albeit not a source, they are probably properly sourced. But that one seems to claim a 20-something percentage number and not the 60-something number in the infographic. If I misread the stats, I’m sure you’ll correct me. Still, it is the original infographic that I’m concerned with.

Can you then elaborate on the little reference tag – I assume it is a reference – to “Dog Bite org”?

This “data” may be true, it is not my field of research, but the org it comes from seem shady…

DogsBite.org accuses several organizations of being “co-opted by the ‘pit bull lobby’, a shady cabal that supporters of the site imply is financed by dogfighters.”

“The site’s founder is also contemptuous of people in the relevant sciences, including those at the AVMA, the CDC, the Animal Behavior Society, etc. She refers to them as ‘science whores,’ which alone is enough to discredit her claims.”

In an article in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, R. Scott Nolen states that "DogsBite.org’s claim that pit bull–type dogs were responsible for 65 percent of the deaths during that 12-year period (2005-2016) is disputed by some groups as inaccurate and misleading.

When you just show a infograph like this with no context, you are doing the same thing as the far right is doing with crime stats and immigrants. And you compare others to MAGA? If the data turns out to be true or not, you are still not taking the subject matter seriously.

deleted by creator