Oh believe you me, I 100% stand by the first 10 years of Kanye, and artists’ don’t have the right to ruin nostalgia for our youth. We are not obligated to stand by old men or women just because they did cool things in their youth.

People always told me that Grimes was super smart, but every time she opens her mouth, it’s some of the dumbest shit I have ever heard. She is the guy we all knew in high school, the one who takes mushrooms and stares at Tool album covers, and expects the rest of us to pretend they are brilliant.

This chick literally wrote an open letter to communists, saying that if they support Elon Musk, he will use AI to bring a communist system.

If she were to ever shut up, it may dawn on her that she is actually a fucking idiot, and we can’t have that, so she never shuts the fuck up.

I’m not looking at 99% pit bull attack videos though on YouTube.

Now, everybody has a different search results targeted directly to them by Google. If Google is only showing you pit bull attacks, it’s because they decided that is the content you are willing to engage with.

And seeing that you create accounts to argue 8 month old comments that are defending pit bulls, it seems pretty clear that Google has assumed correctly about you.

To be clear, people who advocate for the extermimation of all bully breeds are not claiming that pitbulls account for 99% of all attacks.

So right out of the gate you have decided to make the point you are “debating” more extreme than the most extreme right wing nutcases already part of the conversation.

Better luck rage baiting somebody else. Maybe start out reasonable and then ramp up the insanity slowly instead of coming out of the gate so hot next time.

I see at the bottom of your graph, it specifically states that “all other dogs” excludes 3 breeds, all 3 breeds known to be commonly mistaken as Pitts.

So… Where are their numbers? Are they in the Pit Bull category as I said they would be?

If your argument isn’t that mutts + pit bulls and commonly mistaken for like Cane Corso’s make up 60%, than that is not a source backing up your argument.

Your second source separates mutts and backs up your original claim?

Your own source, an attorney’s office, is who states that mutts with pit in their genetics are part of that 60% number.

This is your own source.

That’s up to you.

What other subjects do you accept almost 20 year old data on? Do you go back 50 years? What is the cut off for you in all subjects, or is pit bulls the only subject you don’t have a standard for?

So your argument started out as pits cause 60% of attacks to now being the 5 pit types, the commonly mistaken for Pitts, and mutts comprise 60% of attacks.

These are two separate arguments being made. The first one is false, and the second one probably is true, bit you are presenting it as if it is the first argument.

Your data was true 13-15 years ago, doesn’t mean it is true today.

Your sources are a personal injury law firm and a victim’s advocate website.

Are they taking their numbers from media reports?

Your first source says 60% of dog fatalities are from dogs with Pits in their bloodline…

So mixed breeds are being counted as full pits for the sake of building a case?

Which further confirms my statement that you do not have true scientific numbers to support your claims. Ambulance chasers are not scientists. I don’t think that needs to be explained to you.

Again, there is no database of dog genetics that police maintain in the US, unless it was created after 2021.

Meaning all the stats you have are based solely on media reports of dog attacks and not actual dog attacks.

You can also contact the people compiling the lists. If they respond, they will admit that they do not track the rate of attacks committed by German Shepherds in the line of duty.

We also know that Cane Corso’s probably attack a few people per year, yet almost every list excludes them… Because they are counted towards pit bulls.

If you can provide an actual scientifically validated list, I am happy to see it. Otherwise your numbers are fiction and you know it.

The world’s first ever police DNA program started in the UK in 2021, and it was created for dog thefts, not dog attacks.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-57578701

And seeing that there is no national database of all precinct’s police reports, you will have to go to your police department and see for yourself that they are not even cataloguing the breeds per attack.

As for your comment that there are 5 dogs that fall under the umbrella term of pit bull, that actually helps my original point that these lists are unscientific. Chihauhas aren’t lumped together with Mexican shorthairs when the numbers are tallied, neither is any dog lumped with their types. These lists also don’t break down which of the pit types are most responsible for the most attacks.

1. because the numbers aren’t collected by anybody, meaning the lists are lying, and
2. if the pit types were separated by their actual breed, the numbers would show an average or a slightly higher rate of aggression, not the majority of all attacks.

I would also point out that almost none of these lists you read online include German Shephards, which is strange since they tend to be the only dog in the US that is commissioned as Police Officer and are frequently attacking people as part of their job. Further evidence that these lists are unscientific and politically motivated.

Here is a list of 10.

https://pethelpful.com/dogs/10-Breeds-Most-Commonly-Mistaken-For-Pit-Bulls

Just a head’s up but not a single police department in the nation DNA tests or even has a spot on their reports to label which specific breed of dog caused the attack, there is also roughly a dozen different breeds on the list of dogs commonly mistaken for pits.

Anybody telling you pits are responsible for any percentage of dog attacks is lying by giving a number not scientifically achieved.