this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2025
770 points (97.5% liked)
aww
26105 readers
41 users here now
A place with minimal rules for stuff that makes you go awww! Feel free to post pics, gifs, or videos of cats, dogs, babies, or anything cute and remember to be kind to others.
AI posts must be labeled [AI] in the title and are limited to one per week.
While posting and commenting in this community, you must abide by instance-wide rules: https://mastodon.world/about
- No racism or bigotry.
- Be civil: disagreements happen, but thatdoes not provide the right to personally insult others.
- No SPAM posting.
- No trolling of others.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The problem is the misuse of statistics. I want to see a chart that looks at number of child attacks based on if the dog was trained to attack people or defend a home. From there, look at breed.
People buy and train pitbulls for protection. It's called a confounding factor.
If you look at just the result but not the cause you miss the point. That's how people use statistics to lie. That's why you're getting shit.
Having grown up with a pitbull I am afraid you are full of it. They are great dogs, but no matter how well trained they are unpredictable. Until you have seen a pitbull latch onto something that is alive you will never understand what this bread is capable of.
I absolutely loved that dog and I would never recommend the bread for anyone. That is how unpredictable it is. I know of seven people with facial scars from pitbulls. There is no other bread like it.
Ah yes, just ignore the confounding genetic factor while at it. That's surely a scientific approach to all this. ๐
You need to get better at this, troll.
Source?
Where's yours?
I've provided one so far, but who the fuck are you again? That's right, no one. You've contributed nothing to this conversation except asking the one who provided a source for another source.
So fuck off, baiter.
You provided a source showing genetics is a confounding factor to your original graph?
Do you not know what confounding means?
Oh they're confounded alright.
You have not provided one proving your point either. So it seems I'm the only one required to, because you're a hypocritical troll.