this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
885 points (93.6% liked)

Memes

45198 readers
3184 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm directly refuting the point that Pit Bulls are not bad, just their owners are. I don't give a shit about German Shepherds because there's isn't a disproportionate amount of them causing harm to humans.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Numbers say otherwise. Rottweilers and German Shepherds are after Pit Bulls.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yes... they're number 2 and 3... Except between position 1 and 2 is literally a 20x difference. If #1 is held by pitbulls by such an astounding lead that they 20x ahead of #2... You don't look at #2 and #3 as contenders.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Got it. They don't count because Pitbulls are worse. Logic.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yes... pits accounts for 66% and Rottweilers are ~10%... And Shepherd's are ~5%. When First places is 4.4 times further ahead than second and third place combined... It's pretty safe to make the claim they're worse. And it ends up being a very logical claim to hold. So thanks for agreeing.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

LMFAO. You're the kind of person who blames individuals for global warming when it's companies that are fucking up the environment aren't you?

You seem to miss the point that when one population is distinctly attributable to the VAST MAJORITY of the problem... It's that Population that should be held accountable. Dog deaths could become a statistically irrelevant number with n<100 (each death would still be sad, but it would be exceedingly rare). Pitbulls are in the way of that.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I see. 10% is a statistically irrelevant number.

[–] NotSoCoolWhip@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You're failing to acknowledge why someone who would be more concerned about a bigger number. 60 is bigger than 10 sir, and we should focus on 60, as it would have a greater effect for our effort

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

I didn't realize we could only focus on one thing at a time.