this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2024
0 points (50.0% liked)

Lemmy Be Wholesome

6575 readers
332 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Be Wholesome. This is the polar opposite of LemmeShitpost. Here you can post wholesome memes, palate cleanser and good vibes.

The home to heal your soul. No bleak-posting!

Rules:


1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. No NSFW Content


-Content shouldn't be NSFW

-Refrain from posting triggering content, if the content might be triggering try putting it behind NSFW tags.


7. Content should be Wholesome, we accept cute cats, kittens, puppies, dogs and anything, everything that restores your faith in humanity!


Content that isn't wholesome will be removed.

...


8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.


-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Mildly Infuriating

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Jokes

7.Credible Defense

...

Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Teddy (left), and Sampson (right)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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

Many organisations provide data/breakdowns of dog attacks, just because there isn't (or you are unable to provide) a centralised police data base that lists this information doesn't mean the statistics dont exist.

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

Again you are making assumptions here, can you prove this or am I going to be told to go and find out for myself again?

Your original point was that the police don't perform DNA testing so how can we know, but you have given me nothing that confirms that. I don't even understand your point anymore; It's like you are throwing shit at a wall and hoping something sticks.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Ok so you cannot prove your original point and refuse to even discuss it. Got it.

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

Can you define a pure breed pit bull? All dogs are cross bred, its why these umbrella terms exist. And because you can't confirm a pure bred dog then all statistics about these animals should be dismissed. Additionally you are pinning your entire argument on a lack of a centralised police data base: as if they are the only authority regarding dog breeds.

Such a reductive argument. I also doubt you read both my links considering how quickly you replied. My second one provides yearly breakdowns with incident listings and the source confirming breed, gender and causes for the attacks.

Are they taking their numbers from media reports?

Maybe read what was provided to you and find out for yourself.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

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.

My argument never changed; Pitbull breeds cause 60% of attacks/fatalities. You just don't understand what a dog breed is. You still think the dogs outlined in the articles I have linked are just mistaken for Pitbulls when they are pitbulls.

Meanwhile your argument was that cops don't perform DNA testing to confirm what breed of dog is responsible for each attack. You couldn't prove that, and when pressed for information you told me to go find out for myself when it's your own point.

You then provided a link that stated 1 specific dog type is mistaken for other dogs, which had nothing to do with anything; additionally that link explained that multiple dogs fall under the pit bull categorisation (which I doubt you even read yourself).

You then provided a link from the UK (A country that has already banned large pit bulls, which makes me laugh as you are using them to defend Pitbulls), but per your own words it was not relevant to the discussion as it was related to tracking dogs, not confirming which breeds were responsible for attacks; continuing your trend of pointless links.

And then you rambled about all evidence being irrelevant as you could not find a centralised police data base. As if they are an authority on dog breeds in the first place.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a dog breed is, and when I provide information to help your understanding you don't even bother to read past the first few lines.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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.

I knew you never looked up my second link.

Regardless of what you think about the validity of my evidence at least I provide links relevant to the discussion. You don't even know what a dog breed is.

Oh, did you ever find anything to prove your initial point? No, I didn't think so...

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Got any evidence at all to prove any of your points... No?

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

Read it and find out, is that so hard? No wonder all your links have been irrelevant, you probably didn't even read your own evidence.

Here I have pulled one graph from that page, you dont even need to read the whole article now. But if you did you would find a break down by year, case, breed and causes for attacks. Along with evidence backing up each case.

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.

Are you seriously asking me what my point is when I have repeated at nauseum. Are you that dense?

Provide evidence for any of the crap you have dribbling about or go away lol. And until then I'm not going to bother to continue engaging you.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 4 months ago

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?