Quote:
Originally Posted by javadog
Here you go, you ****ing idiot.
|
That is kind of uncalled for, isn't it? I guess that's one of the beauties of the internet for guys like you - you can say these things like that with no ramifications. I can tell you this, however, in real life - face to face - I would knock your teeth right out through the back of your neck.
That out of the way, let's deconstruct your article.
First off, it's notable in that it is very well annotated. At least when presenting facts and data. Those facts and data, by the way, very solidly support my position, and the position of the majority of the contributors to our many threads covering this very dangerous, unpredictable breed. I've included excerpts that demonstrate this below.
Where this article falls very, very short, however, is where it presents the authors' opinions, and fails to support them with their otherwise very thorough annotation. Its many statements that begin with or include "may" are notable in their
lack of annotation. I have highlighted those with my own comments:
In a range of studies, the breeds found to be highly represented in biting incidents were German Shepherd Dog,
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,50 mixed breed,
1,4,6,8,10,11,12,19,17, 20,50 pit bull type,5,9,13,16,21,20,22,23,24,25,26,27 Rottweiler,
15,18,22,24,25,28) Jack Russell Terrier,
21,25,26 and others (Chow Chow,
7,23 Spaniel,
14,26 Collie,
3,29 Saint Bernard,
20 and Labrador Retriever
2).
If you consider only the much smaller number of cases that resulted in very severe injuries or fatalities,
21,23 pit bull-type dogs are more frequently identified.
However this
may relate to the popularity of the breed in the victim's community, reporting biases and the dog's treatment by its owner (e.g., use as fighting dogs
21).
The only annotated conjecture in the entire article, and we have no access to the annotated study. Nonetheless, the authors still present this as conjecture - not fact.
Owners of pit bull-type dogs deal with a strong breed stigma,
44 however controlled studies have not identified this breed group as disproportionately dangerous.
No annotation given in support of this statement. What studies? Many others are listed in support of other points, why not these? The pit bull type is particularly ambiguous as a "breed" encompassing a range of pedigree breeds, informal types and appearances that cannot be reliably identified. Visual determination of dog breed is known to not always be reliable.
45 And witnesses
may be predisposed to assume that a vicious dog is of this type.
Pure conjecture, again with no supporting annotation.
It should also be considered that the incidence of pit bull-type dogs' involvement in severe and fatal attacks
may represent high prevalence in neighborhoods that present high risk to the young children who are the most common victim of severe or fatal attacks.
Once again, we see the authors' conjecture presented without supporting annotation. And as owners of stigmatized breeds are more likely to have involvement in criminal and/or violent acts
46 O.k., so this statement is supported with annotation—breed correlations
may have the owner's behavior as the underlying causal factor.
But this is not... once again, the authors' conjecture, presented without supporting annotation.
Do you see a pattern there? The authors present facts about the breed's behavior, and annotate quite thoroughly when they do so. But then, in an attempt to introduce causation other than breed, they devolve into conjecture with no supporting annotation whatsoever. They are drawing conclusions that the evidence does not support, injecting their unfounded opinions into an otherwise factually supported paper.
I don't know where you went to school, but where I did, a paper like this would earn a resounding "F". There is clearly a lot of reporting bias, with the authors hoping you might not notice the difference between the facts they present and the unsupported opinions they present. I take it from your notion that this paper actually supports your position that you did not pick up on that. And I'm the "frickin' idiot"...
