Tavarin @ Tavarin @lemmy.ca

Posts

0

Comments

617

Joined

2 yr. ago

And lots of evidence of Republicans committing fraud in 2020, and still they lost.

Same, was in high school '04-'08 and maybe 1% of the kids dressed like that. Most of us just wore jeans and t-shirts, and had short haircuts.

The cops don't care, they'll claim you're lying and take the cash anyway.

An act of armed robbery by a gang in India or Burma. had to look it up.

Heyo, didn't log into world for a while, so didn't see this. here it is with white outline, both white and red nose.

Also a Brother :P

My Brother printer has been going for about 14 years, so I recommend them.

I've had the same brother inkjet printer for 14 years now, and it still works great.

Torrents are still around, lots of sites out there for them.

And there are many many ways around those rules, shell companies, family members, friends. You can put other name son the ownership to get around limits easily.

Provinces need to update zoning, and build units. That's how you get prices down. The Federal government can't do much.

Not in any way applicable in this context.

Possibly subsidies too, government there might be subsidizing cattle farming.

And someone owns those units. You can't just force the unit owners to sell.

Ummm, Expedia has been around for ages.

And people already live there, the government would have to ask them to sell. There aren't a bunch of empty unowned blocks for the federal government to buy, and they can't force the legal owners to sell.

They have virtually no way to control supply, they don't control zoning, don't control infrastructure. Even if they buy up some apartments, which they would need to convince people to sell, it would be a tiny drop in the housing problem bucket.

If we want housing solved we need to do it at the provincial and municipal levels, and stop electing conservatives in at those levels.

Housing is a provincial issue, there's very little the federal government can do about it.

but it emphatically does not hold more authority or validity than an in-depth study from the American Veterinary Association

When a study fails to identify the breed for the vast majority of attacks, then states breed has nothing to do with the attacks, it is an absolute failure of peer review. Also do you not realize journal editors barely read the papers, they get peer reviewers to do it, and shit does get through (source: I've edited journals and published and reviewed dozens of papers).

But let's dive into the other actual sources.

Source 1, no breed identification = not applicable.

Source 2, once again does not include any pitbulls, so does not apply at all. The website is absolutely idiotic to include it. As for pitbull bites being worse, for all bites that required hospital intervention, 50% were by pitbulls, so yeah worse than other breeds:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5682160/

here's another paper showing pitbulls cause more damage with their bites than most breeds, only matched by German Shepherds in severity:

https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/wk/prs/2020/00000146/00000005/art00076

Source 3, data only goes up to 1998, and the vast majority of fatalities from a known breed are still caused by pitbulls.

Source 4, breed identification, not applicable given pits are mixes.

Source 5, same as source 4.

Source 6, abstract claims they saw similar aggression between breeds, but the data suggests otherwise. Where 59% of golden retrievers showed no aggression, only 35% of pitbulls showed no aggression. And where only 1.4 percent of retrievers showed significant aggression, 14 percent of pitbulls showed it. So pitbulls are actually more aggressive than golden retrievers. The authors bend over backwards to claim it's because the owners are more stressed, so the animals get stressed, instead of acknowledging the data shows pits are actually more aggressive. Seems it was written by pit apologists, and not by unbiased observers.

Source 7, is a study from the UK, where pitbulls are banned, and does not include any data on pitbulls. So as with source 2, it should not be on the site.

Source 8, includes zero data on pitbulls, but does show bigger dogs have stronger bites. So not exactly in pitbulls favour there.

Source 9, just a summary of how bites are measured, no mention of pitbulls.

Source 10, makes no mention of breeds. Breed specific legislation does not mean that breed can't be found in a region, just that it doesn't reduce bites. Also ticketing works to reduce dog bites.

Source 11, dog population and ownership rate was not in any way mentioned. Bites may have gone up simply because there are more dogs being owned during that period. Without that data this paper is useless (and this data was likely intentionally left out to sell a specific narrative).

Source 12, doesn't include pitbulls, so again fails to act in their defense in any way.

So nope, your, and this websites bias, are causing you to massively misread papers and misinterpret their results.

Nope, pitbulls are a violent and dangerous breed. Labradors vastly outnumber them, yet never kill anyone. And there's plenty of shitty Labrador owners out there.

Breeds do matter, and shit breeds make for shit dogs.

Pitbull info is your source? Yeah, that's not going to be biased at all.

The first link is to a paper where the authors only identified the breed in 45b out of 256 dog attacks, and they concluded breed had nothing to do with the attack? Bullshit, they didn't know the breed 80% of the time, so they could not make that conclusion. Plus abusive and neglectful owners only accounted for 20% of dog attacks, so most attacks are not a result of bad owners.

The second link is to a paper out of Ireland that doesn't include any data about pitbulls, the legislated breeds include German shepherds and rottweilers, but no pitbulls. yet the website is using that paper to defend pitbulls? Absolute bullshit, since they aren't in the paper.

Their third link is to their own website, that horribly misuses the data and statistics, and draws false conclusions, so it's complete bullshit.

Must I go on? That website is just a giant crock of shit designed to fool people.

Here's some data for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States

Actual dog attacks, and the vast majority are pitbulls. It has nothing to do with race, pitbulls are responsible for the vast majority of fatal dog attacks. That's the facts.

The people I know that have been bitten by dogs, all pits. And all owned by white people.

Stop trying to tie this to racism, it isn't a dogwhistle. Pitbulls are the most dangerous type of dog there is.