Do I have to repeat, yet again, my first hand knowledge and evidence
that dogsbite.org deliberately ignores evidence
and knowingly falsifies their statistics?
You’ve surely been around long enough to have seen it before.
Do I have to repeat, yet again, my first hand knowledge and evidence
that dogsbite.org deliberately ignores evidence
and knowingly falsifies their statistics?
You’ve surely been around long enough to have seen it before.
__________________________
We’ll I’ve researched the false claims of pit nutters for years and they’re always blatant liars. If you have evidence that dogsbite.org “deliberately ignores evidence” and “falsifies their statistics” I’d appreciate it if you’d post it. I like to be informed and the change would be nice.
Nope!
Do I have to repeat, yet again, my first hand knowledge and evidence
that dogsbite.org deliberately ignores evidence
and knowingly falsifies their statistics?
_____________________________________________
You don’t have ANY first hand knowledge and evidence. You have baseless assertions and hearsay so no, there’s no need to repeat that.
Checked the old thread you linked:
Well well well....no evidence at all....just the same baseless assertion you used on this thread. Just hearsay by a pro pit advocate. How convenient. I guess since you’ve said it twice, you call it evidence. And THIS is what you think has refuted decades of statistics and first person accounts, police reports, videos and the medical studies proving that when pits attack, they inflict injuries which require longer hospital stays, more services and greater debility.
I see some of my posts indicate that even 3 years ago I was aware of the way pit advocates simply deny documented evidence, here’s a prior post from 2011:
“If I have time, I’ll track down the article. I am not really invested in doing so because I know that the pro pit lobby denies evidence presented (like fatality stats - those are hard to make disappear so they simply deny them, problem solved) so actually presenting evidence to them is a waste of time.
32 posted on 6/3/2011 11:55:10 PM by ransomnote”
Link to a study about heritability of dog agression an “abnormally agressive dog”: http://www.scribd.com/doc/14810086/Heritability-of-Behavior-in-the-Abnormally-Aggressive-Dog-by-A-Semyonova
From the article:
“Research now shows that, through selection for aggressive performance, we have in fact been consistently selecting for very specific abnormalities in the brain. These abnormalities appear in many breeds of dog as an accident
or anomaly, which breeders then attempt to breed out of the dogs. In the case of the aggressive breeds, the opposite was true. Rather than excluding abnormally aggressive dogs
from their breeding stock, breeders focused on creating lineages in which all the dogs would carry these genes (i.e., dogs which would reliably exhibit the desired impulsive aggressive behavior). They succeeded. Now that we know exactly which brain abnormalities breeders have been selecting, the assertion that this aggression is not heritable is no longer tenable. It is also not tenable to assert that not all the dogs of these breeds will carry these genes. The lack may occur as an accident where selection has failed, just as the golden retriever may have
the genes due to failing selection against the genes. But the failure to have the gene is, in the aggressive breeds, just that – a failure. It is therefore misleading to assert that the aggressive breeds will only have the selected genes as a matter of accident, or that most of them will be
fit to interact safely with other animals and humans. We have selected intensively for these genes in these breeds, for hundreds of years, and the accident that may incidentally occur is lack of the selected genes”