GreNME said:
Ironic, given how many personal anecdotes you've used to build your argument.
You just can't stop with the logical fallacies. Now you're trying to play a tu quoque. Feel free to point out which argument I've built on anecdotes. I've given personal examples when dismissing red herrings like the break bar, but my actual arguments as stated in my last post are based on the data and the glaring lack thereof on the BSL side of things.
Well I don't share your pessimism about the accuracy of media analyses. It's usually the investigating officer that identifies the breed for the media, rather than the victim, and so I imagine this would reduce some of the inability of teh report to properly identify the breed.
Bull crap. You need to qualify that kind of wild claim (an officer is the identifying party) if you expect me to take you seriously. I have never seen anyone make such a wild claim. The standard reporting of dog bites, to my knowledge, has always been the best guess of the victims involved unless the animal is captured, at which point it's the best guess of the animal control units. However,
there is no standard level of reporting for all municipalities, which sort of blows your claim out of the water unless you have some form of evidence to back it up. This is pretty much the key flaw in all attempts to provide statistical analyses of dog bites, because there is a flawed underlying assumption that all municipalities have the same degree of evidential accuracy when it comes to reporting something like dog bites.
But hey, if you can back up this wild claim with some evidence I'd love to see it.
Here's one such media analysis of dog fatalities in the US:
http://www.dogsbite.org/reports/dogsbite-report-us-dog-bite-fatalities-2006-2008.pdf
It says pitbulls were responsible for more than half of the fatal attacks reported between 2006 and 2008.
Now, even if 75% of those pitbulls were actually german shepherds and were misidentified by the victims and the investigating officers, you'd still have pitbulls responsible for a disproportionate number of fatal dog attacks in the US.
This is why I call the types of arguments your making similar to Truther arguments. You keep citing a website whose goal is to promote breed-specific legislation and is quite open about it. Your constant reference to dogsbite.org is no different than Truthers referencing Infowars or Loose Change. Let's look at why this link is so horribly flawed in terms of any scientific credibility:
"Summary: Between January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2008, DogsBite.org recorded 88 U.S. fatal dog attacks. The data shows that pit bulls are responsible for 59% (52) of these attacks. The data also shows that pit bulls commit the vast majority of off-property attacks that result in death. Only 18% (16) of the attacks occurred off owner property, yet pit bulls were responsible for 81% (13).
Pit bulls are also more likely to kill an adult than a child. In the 3- year period, pit bulls killed more adults (ages 21 and over), 54%, than they did children (ages 11 and younger), 46%. In the age category of 21-54, pit bulls were responsible for 82% (14) of the deaths. Pit bulls do not only kill children and senior citizens, they kill men and women in their prime years: 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s.
Information for this report was gathered through media accounts that were available at the time of the attack or found through Internet archives, including: Google News Archive and AccessMyLibrary. The history of each fatality studied for this report (a copy of each news article) is available in the "Bite Statistics > Fatality Citations" section of the DogsBite.org website."
In case you missed it, I highlighted the flaw in your "analysis" report. It's using media reporting instead of anything close to a reliable accounting. Eyewitness testimony-- the most common form in these reports-- happens to be
notoriously flawed (despite the fact that
much weight is given to it), and eyewitness testimony becomes even more flawed when the eyewitness is not skilled in identifying dog breeds, particularly different bully breeds or mixed breeds of non-common types (which is the majority of people). While the average person can tell a German shepherd from a Labrador, the likelihood of correctly drops significantly when dealing with non-common breeds, which tends to get breeds like the Staffordshire terrier lumped in with pit bulls automatically, and pretty much any mutt that even looks like it has a bully breed in its mix tends to get the label "pit mix" (
link [pdf]).
In other words, Captain.Sassy, you've made an irrational claim on reporting accuracy (that officers do the identification) and cited an analysis using
news reports in support of the irrational claim, essentially shooting your own assertion in the foot. Of course, the NCRC link I provided pages ago already points this flaw out, in that there has not ever been consistent reporting sufficient for statistical accuracy. Of course, you're going to continue to try to beat that drum no matter how much it's pointed out how your evidence is lacking and flawed.
Here's a paper (argues
against BSL, though I disagree with how this conclusion is reached) which cites data from Calgary, which the authors say actually has pretty good data on attacks and incidents by breed:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2834488/pdf/16187720.pdf
"In 2003, Calgary reported
that 0.84% of German shepherds and their crosses
bit a human, compared with 1.14% of rottweilers
and their crosses, and 3.86% of pit bulls. When
considering total aggressive incidents (bites, chase/
threats, damage to property, damage to other animals,
human injury), 1.9% of German shepherd dogs
and their crosses were involved, compared with 4.8%
of rottweiler and their crosses, and 14.88% of the pit
bulls (7)"
There are other statistics in there and some arguments against BSL and its effectiveness. If you wish to defend any of the arguments the paper makes, please feel free to- I am just using the article as a source of some figures and do not fully agree with its conclusions (though it's interesting to me to see that the article refers to pitbulls as 'fighting breed'.)
I don't know what you want me to argue against. The paper cites Calgary animal control statistics, but doesn't give any explanation on how the city gathers such statistics. Since I've already pointed out (pages ago) that cities don't all provide statistics with any standard of accuracy, there's no way to discern the reliability of the data when the sources could be self-reported from the victims or fall into the recursive logic of "if it attacked it must be a pit bull, and thus attacked because it was a pit bull" that's confirmed regularly in news reporting (as is evidenced by your "media analysis").
Of course, since you're not offering any clear argument of your own and tossing rhetorical spaghetti on the wall, I see no reason to take your bait and start making arguments against others when you can't provide a clear argument yourself. That tends to fall under "red herring."
GreNME said:
I would say that JRs weren't "bred to bite things" and that's an inaccurate description.
k so how else were they supposed to kill whatever it was they were bred to kill?
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying, so I'll be clear:
all dogs bite. Saying that a dog was "bred to bite" is like saying that they were "bred to see." It's inaccurate because it's a general term that applies to all dogs. Some dogs have been bred to bite in a different manner than others, but in the case of Jack Russel terriers that manner is consistent with pretty much all terriers, which isn't anything special in its own right (and again not accurate).
This is an example of why I recommended Jean Donaldson's book ("Culture Clash") in a previous post. Such statements (like "bred to bite") are examples of the inaccuracies in how people, particularly people who do not deal directly with dog behavior, see in the way dogs behave and in their histories.
You're clearly getting offended, or were. Maybe you've calmed down a bit since, but I know the biggest insult you can level at someone on here is 'truther', and you've thrown that one around a couple of times
Do everyone here a favor and please try to refrain from trying to read minds. I'm pointing out that your logic is consistent with that of the most egregious similar case of the type of flawed logic you're using, which happens to consist of a great deal of confirmation bias, selection bias, misapplication or misunderstanding of actual information/data, and when challenged personal attack (which you're doing now). Since you've also cited the fraudulent Clifton Report I could also liken the logic you're using to that of creationists, but since you've dropped that one in lieu of the confirmation bias route I'm sticking to the similar consistency.
What 'authoritative sources'... the UKC history of the APBT? The one that didn't specifically say the APBT was bred for fighting, but merely implied it and glossed it over? You DO know the UKC was set up because the AKC wouldn't recognise the APBT because of its association with dogfighting? Do you think this might in any way influence their official standard for the breed?
Despite your assertions of having "implied it and glossed it over," you're now suggesting a reasoning for the UKC having recognized it before their American counterparts without providing evidence (or context). The APBT is not an AKC-recognized breed, nor has it ever been. However, claiming that it's the AKC who is behind this is assuming a lot (and conflating the APBT history with the British
Staffordshire bull terrier, which was recognized in 1974) in terms of motivations. The reason the APBT was not ever recognized has more to do with the politics between the UKC and the AKC than your simplistic account. The AKC protested to both the bull-baiting and the fighting (both of which had been banned in Britain but immigrated to the US), while the UKC folks intended to keep the APBT out of AKC registration to avoid breeders breeding the dog to meet confirmation guidelines for competition (the judges look over the dog and judge according to certain "types") as opposed to having them compete in "purpose driven" competitions (pulling sleds and holding on to ropes and other physical competitions). Eventually the AKC relented to some groups of APBT owners who wanted to compete in confirmation, but to avoid "dual registration" with the UKC they required a different registration name and also have a stipulation that a UKC-registered APBT
cannot be registered as an AKC American Staffordshire terrier. The politics aren't difficult to understand, particularly because the AKC tended to be more "upper class" while the UKC more "working class" in terms of membership, but there's a lot more to the story of why the APBT isn't a registered breed than to simply say that the AKC was against dog fighting (thus implying that this was all the APBT was being used for).
This link goes into some of the history, and while I'm not exactly impressed with the amateurish and hyperbole-laden verbiage of that page it does provide a number of names, dates, and location references if you're interested in actually going through and verifying the history instead of just constantly dealing in readers-digest versions of everything.
here we go again...
and again...
When you stop arguing in the same manner, making the same mistakes in logic and ridiculous, evidence-lacking assertions, then you won't have to worry about me likening your argument tactics with Truthers. As of now, though, you're still playing from the same strategy cards they do.
I also notice you've completely failed to provide evidence, which in the second statement you quoted was the criticism being levied. Great job in avoiding the actual criticism of your argument without even pretending to actually back your assertions up.
once again with the UKC breed standard... pretty flimsy rickshaw there.
Ahh, more arguing from incredulity. Why don't you actually try to provide even a shred of substance to your flimsy denials instead of just assuming that everyone reading should take your claims for granted.
Anyways, I'll get to the rest of your novel later.
Try to refrain from all the personal attacks; you're better than that.
Name a personal attack, because I'm attacking your arguments and the only attacks aimed at an individual so far have been coming from you.
