Higgins, you have a comprehension problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins
Worse yet, you clearly cannot even understand the very paper you posted as the centerpiece of your argument.
|
That paper isn't the centerpiece of my argument. To reiterate what I just posted:
The article in question is simply a survey of some of the available literature on dog bite studies and related topics. It was presented to you to illustrate the point that the subject has indeed been studied, it's not hard to find references to those studies and, if you were truly interested in studying the problem, you could go look for these articles and read them.
TO BEAT IT INTO YOUR THICK HEAD, it was a not a study to support any particular position, it was simply quoted to refute your inane position that you've "looked hard and can't find anything to refute your position."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Higgins
You keep repeating the same false information; it keeps getting debunked by the rest of us.
|
You seem incapable of following my conversation. I never claimed that pit bulls aren't involved in a disproportion share of incidents. I am simply stating that
the studies that have been done, that delve into causation, state that breed is not the dominate factor in the majority of these incidents.
Here is one such study, which I have now posted a link to three times:
https://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.243.12.1726?journalCode=javma
Have you read it yet? There are others.
Your notion that "breed" is the dominant causal factor in these incidents is both too simplistic and incorrect.