That may be true in the US. Here in the UK there is no such correlation, and yet pitbulls here still cause more injuries and deaths than all other breeds combined. Odd, that.
My argument wasn’t that it cancels out any studies showing pitbulls being aggressive; as I stated before, I wasn’t interested in participating in that argument. My argument was that stereotypes aren’t a valid argument that something is true. They then stated that dogs aren’t political, u like other stereotypes to which I demonstrated that yes, dogs breeds can be associated with political biases. I
Do you think that stereotyping applies here, then? You seem minded to agree that pitbulls are more dangerous in fact than other breeds, given you won’t participate one way or the other. So if pitbulls are in fact more dangerous then if would be reasonable, rather than irrational stereotyping, to be more wary of them, and to label them as more dangerous.
That may be true in the US. Here in the UK there is no such correlation, and yet pitbulls here still cause more injuries and deaths than all other breeds combined. Odd, that.
It’s because of your bias towards drug dealers /s
My argument wasn’t that it cancels out any studies showing pitbulls being aggressive; as I stated before, I wasn’t interested in participating in that argument. My argument was that stereotypes aren’t a valid argument that something is true. They then stated that dogs aren’t political, u like other stereotypes to which I demonstrated that yes, dogs breeds can be associated with political biases. I
Do you think that stereotyping applies here, then? You seem minded to agree that pitbulls are more dangerous in fact than other breeds, given you won’t participate one way or the other. So if pitbulls are in fact more dangerous then if would be reasonable, rather than irrational stereotyping, to be more wary of them, and to label them as more dangerous.