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.
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.
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.
None of that matters to the point that “X is a minority yet produces the majority of Y” in a vacuum is an example of a “correlation does not imply causation” fallacy. More specifically it’s an example of Simpson’s paradox, where you look at the data as a whole and derive a statistically significant result that X is more prone to Y, but if you were to normalize for some factors (in both these cases standard of living) you would see that there’s absolutely no correlation between the 2.
I never compared dog to people, I’m comparing the argument to show how it doesn’t make any sense. All of the new arguments you pulled there are an entire different can of worms, but in short while you’re correct that artificial selection of dog breeds has altered then genetically to a greater extent than what natural selection did for humans, it’s still the same species in both cases and your argument sounds straight out of a Nazi science book in Eugenics.
Let me be very clear here since you seem to not be able to understand, I’m saying people who claim black people are more aggressive are stupid idiots who can’t understand basic statistics when it’s starting them in the face. I’m saying there are a lot of factors at play here and reducing things to a simple “the majority of attacks are caused by X subgroup” ignores all of them and is a BAD ARGUMENT.
I think that the problem here is that you can’t seem to accept that the argument is bad, therefore when presented with the exact same argument applied to people you don’t stop to think that if the logic doesn’t apply here it also doesn’t apply there. It’s like someone said “I never met a green bird, therefore no bird is green” and I replied “that’s the same as saying I never met an asian therefore they don’t exist” and you went into a rampant about the struggles of Asians in our society.
We all have a single common ancestor so where do you draw the line? All humans are genetically closer to each other than dog breeds are. That’s the fault of eugenics. The theory isn’t wrong as it falls off of the theory of evolution, the facts are wrong because humans are so generically close to each other regardless of race. Dog breeds are different to the point that it’s scientific fact that they have different traits. Your argument just digs your grave further as you have to say different races of humans are like different breeds of dogs. Which in fact is a racist narrative - once again you’re helping contribute to the eugenicist argument by saying humans are like dogs.
“Correlation doesn’t equal causation” yet when 99% of lighting strikes happen during a storm, maybe it’s worth investigating if the storms contribute to lightning strikes happening. People have investigated this with black crime statistics, and turns out that it was systemic racism. So thus it was debunked.
The argument for pitbulls is purely emotional. Sure they may be as aggressive as chihuahuas, but I can beat a chihuahua in a fight. A pitbull, probably not.
It’s a pikachu face when you’re dog bred to destroy other dogs just so happens to be dangerous, and maybe we really should wipe out that entire breed from existence.
I’m not drawing the line, you are when you claim races exist as anything more than social constructs over shared characteristics.
In any case, all of what you’re saying are red herrings ignoring the point I’m making that the logic is flawed. Which you clearly agree with:
People have investigated this with black crime statistics, and turns out that it was systemic racism. So thus it was debunked.
If the argument was solid it wouldn’t need investigation, the fact that investigation disproves that argument lets you know it’s not solid logic.
Since similar studies have not been conducted for dogs and we can’t exclude other factors (for example that assholes who want a dog to mistreat prefer aggressive breeds), the argument is just as pointless as it is for people.
Race is a social construct, dog breeds very much aren’t. They were bred for a reason. Numerous countries, including my own, have banned pitbulls for that reason.
Red herring: That is an entirely different argument from the one I’m replying to and has absolutely no bearing on the point I’m trying to make.
That being said you should really pick up a history book sometime, slaves were also sometimes bred in much the same way dogs are now.
Plus dog breeds are also mostly social constructs, to the point that the majority of Pitbull attacks are not actually done by Pitbulls but were misidentified.
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.
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.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
I think you’re the racist asshole comparing black people to dogs
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.
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.
None of that matters to the point that “X is a minority yet produces the majority of Y” in a vacuum is an example of a “correlation does not imply causation” fallacy. More specifically it’s an example of Simpson’s paradox, where you look at the data as a whole and derive a statistically significant result that X is more prone to Y, but if you were to normalize for some factors (in both these cases standard of living) you would see that there’s absolutely no correlation between the 2.
I never compared dog to people, I’m comparing the argument to show how it doesn’t make any sense. All of the new arguments you pulled there are an entire different can of worms, but in short while you’re correct that artificial selection of dog breeds has altered then genetically to a greater extent than what natural selection did for humans, it’s still the same species in both cases and your argument sounds straight out of a Nazi science book in Eugenics.
Let me be very clear here since you seem to not be able to understand, I’m saying people who claim black people are more aggressive are stupid idiots who can’t understand basic statistics when it’s starting them in the face. I’m saying there are a lot of factors at play here and reducing things to a simple “the majority of attacks are caused by X subgroup” ignores all of them and is a BAD ARGUMENT.
I think that the problem here is that you can’t seem to accept that the argument is bad, therefore when presented with the exact same argument applied to people you don’t stop to think that if the logic doesn’t apply here it also doesn’t apply there. It’s like someone said “I never met a green bird, therefore no bird is green” and I replied “that’s the same as saying I never met an asian therefore they don’t exist” and you went into a rampant about the struggles of Asians in our society.
We all have a single common ancestor so where do you draw the line? All humans are genetically closer to each other than dog breeds are. That’s the fault of eugenics. The theory isn’t wrong as it falls off of the theory of evolution, the facts are wrong because humans are so generically close to each other regardless of race. Dog breeds are different to the point that it’s scientific fact that they have different traits. Your argument just digs your grave further as you have to say different races of humans are like different breeds of dogs. Which in fact is a racist narrative - once again you’re helping contribute to the eugenicist argument by saying humans are like dogs.
“Correlation doesn’t equal causation” yet when 99% of lighting strikes happen during a storm, maybe it’s worth investigating if the storms contribute to lightning strikes happening. People have investigated this with black crime statistics, and turns out that it was systemic racism. So thus it was debunked.
The argument for pitbulls is purely emotional. Sure they may be as aggressive as chihuahuas, but I can beat a chihuahua in a fight. A pitbull, probably not.
It’s a pikachu face when you’re dog bred to destroy other dogs just so happens to be dangerous, and maybe we really should wipe out that entire breed from existence.
I’m not drawing the line, you are when you claim races exist as anything more than social constructs over shared characteristics.
In any case, all of what you’re saying are red herrings ignoring the point I’m making that the logic is flawed. Which you clearly agree with:
If the argument was solid it wouldn’t need investigation, the fact that investigation disproves that argument lets you know it’s not solid logic.
Since similar studies have not been conducted for dogs and we can’t exclude other factors (for example that assholes who want a dog to mistreat prefer aggressive breeds), the argument is just as pointless as it is for people.
Race is a social construct, dog breeds very much aren’t. They were bred for a reason. Numerous countries, including my own, have banned pitbulls for that reason.
Red herring: That is an entirely different argument from the one I’m replying to and has absolutely no bearing on the point I’m trying to make.
That being said you should really pick up a history book sometime, slaves were also sometimes bred in much the same way dogs are now.
Plus dog breeds are also mostly social constructs, to the point that the majority of Pitbull attacks are not actually done by Pitbulls but were misidentified.