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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Numbers say otherwise. Rottweilers and German Shepherds are after Pit Bulls.
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.
Got it. They don’t count because Pitbulls are worse. Logic.
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.
I see. 10% doesn’t matter.
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.
I see. 10% is a statistically irrelevant number.
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